I'm writing an essay on the driving age being kept at 16. THIS ESSAY IS DUE THIS WEEK SO I NEED ANSWERS QUICK!! Can you help me think of 16 REAL FACTS on why the driving age should be kept at 16?
Answer:
parents compaian about having to "taxi" their children around
kids need the independce
we have to learn the seriousness of freedom
with great power comes great responsibility (that should be the title)
we hae to get to work somehow
parents have something to control, at taht age its hard to find things to take away!!
learn the value of the dollar
thats all i can think of!!
you only need 3 strong ones for an essay,
1.Discrimination- Assuming all young drivers are reckless
2.the real facts- old drivers are more hazardous than young drivers(provide statistics)
3.Reasons why 16yr olds need to drive (to work or school)
Bonus:
propose a maximum age to drive
improves economy by more people having to buy cars in a market were american made cars are not successful
remember its an essay so BS it
I think it should be changed to 18.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Should the death sentence be introduced for paedophiles?
i have been reading in my local paper about a portuguese child snatcher who flew over 50 children out of Faro airport in 8 months.children as young as 5 were
abducted and sold into prostitution and slavery. some of these children may be in the uk, sold onto wealthy abusers. pedro miguel da costa damba was jailed for 6 years in 2002 for the string of abductions, but was released early for good behavior. this dangerous, vile thing is now obviously out theresomewhere and i doubt very much he has been rehabilitated. he was only caught when an immigration officer noticedhe was flying his second "family" to Egland in a week. surely in cases like this there is no other option but to put these things down. life imprisonment is an option, but as a tax payer i am not happy paying for these individuals to live a life of luxury.
Answer:
Possibly, castration also springs to mind! (And i mean the full meat and veg)
A shark tank would be a good start(make sure those sharks are HUNGRY!!!)
YES!!!! We have to protect our children!
i think the death sentence should be used for them but then theres always the chance someone could be wrongly convicted and if they've already been killed theres no going back
yes
we live in a democracy and Parliament syas no. If you want to change the laws vote for a different government.
.
No, it is unacceptable to use the death penality.Taking a life is a crime, also there is always the case of miscarriages of justice.I think life imprisonment should mean life for these people, and it certainly wouldnt be a life of luxury!
naa, should just get some big fat ugly man to poke them and abuse them for the rest of there life. deths to good for them, rather torture them.
Yes Juicy dont think anyone on here would argue against that...
yes as long as it is proved without a doubt .also i think a lump hammer and an anvil should come into play first whack
Who are you to decide the life of another? That makes you no better than them. A hard life prison term should do the trick.
I vote for death! Sick people like that don't change.
Unquestionably Yes
I agree.
or use them for medical testing for the remainder of thier life...with NO painkillers. we can at least get a couple cures out of them.
DEFINITLY
where there is unquestionable guilt...then yes they bloody well should. hope they all rot in hell. disgusting evil scum! but watch how many down thumbs i get by all the do gooders who think its ok for them to clutter up the prisons living it up with colour tvs like ian huntley. or even worse some morons think they can be reabilitated and move them into a hostel next door to a kiddies playground!
That sort of story certainly makes you want them to suffer the ultimate price!
Where do you draw the line though? This evil man actually trades in children and causes them to be abused and mudered. Should the paedophile who only downloads images get the same?
Don't misunderstand me, I know how that trade brings misery to thousands of children...but where do we draw the line?
Yes, that or Castrate them !!
i say no. not for any crime. if we have the death penalty we have to have people within our society that carry it out. are you prepared to do it ?
no you wouldn't.
would you be friends with a person that puts people to death for a living ? i think that once a society has moved on like we have you can't go back to it. usa will eventually see sense too.
I agree with you. Many of the pedophiles seem to do it over and over again. I have no pity for them.
We should take them out in a field tie their hands, let the parents beat them to death, and if they live through it, I volunteer to finish them off, as long as I can do it however I wish.
I truly think the death penalty (especially the way it's set up now), is too easy for them. They are killers (of childhood and innocence) and should be treated as the scum they are. I would love to be like a third world country and torture the hell out of them. Almost to the brink of death, then let them recover, and do it all over again. I can think of a lot of things that would be a worthy torture for those monsters. But, unfortunately, there are too many bleeding heart liberals who think they should have rights.
yes,, if anything happened to my little girl i would gladly take it upon myself to do the job! no problem.
Why Paedophiles and why not Murderers?
At times I am all for it, but then there are always miscariages of justice that make me think twice. If a member of my family or friends was sentenced to death only for years later to be found innocent how and what can be done to compensate the person who was tried and their innocent life taken away from them? Nothing!
Also, lets remember that althought he majority of Paedophiles are men, there are some women out there the same, so please don't come up with the usual "Castrate them" comments.
I hate paedophiles with a vengeance however I am 100% against hanging.I would lock them up %26 throw away the key.
or you could put them into womens prisons and just sit back and watch the women rip them to pieces
I would have the thought the answer is obvious......castration.
Edit. Frosty you are right..I had forgotten that these women often are far more evil than the male...Rosemary West, Myra Hindely......may others.
So the answer has to be Life....... Paedophiles both men and women often become murderers as well.
Yes and not just pedes but serial killers etc
Yes! But be generous and give child molesters ONE chance to rehabilitate. On the first offense, don't just jail them for a fixed term; jail them indefinitely and give them intensive therapy. Don't release them until/unless a PANEL of psychologists agrees that recidivism is highly unlikely. I'm willing to pay my share of the taxes for this humane treatment.
Fry all convicted second-offense child molesters!
Paedophiles who only look at pictures do not deserve such harsh treatment.
In cases like that one, absolutely! It's time we told these sub-humans that if they touch our children they DIE!
abducted and sold into prostitution and slavery. some of these children may be in the uk, sold onto wealthy abusers. pedro miguel da costa damba was jailed for 6 years in 2002 for the string of abductions, but was released early for good behavior. this dangerous, vile thing is now obviously out theresomewhere and i doubt very much he has been rehabilitated. he was only caught when an immigration officer noticedhe was flying his second "family" to Egland in a week. surely in cases like this there is no other option but to put these things down. life imprisonment is an option, but as a tax payer i am not happy paying for these individuals to live a life of luxury.
Answer:
Possibly, castration also springs to mind! (And i mean the full meat and veg)
A shark tank would be a good start(make sure those sharks are HUNGRY!!!)
YES!!!! We have to protect our children!
i think the death sentence should be used for them but then theres always the chance someone could be wrongly convicted and if they've already been killed theres no going back
yes
we live in a democracy and Parliament syas no. If you want to change the laws vote for a different government.
.
No, it is unacceptable to use the death penality.Taking a life is a crime, also there is always the case of miscarriages of justice.I think life imprisonment should mean life for these people, and it certainly wouldnt be a life of luxury!
naa, should just get some big fat ugly man to poke them and abuse them for the rest of there life. deths to good for them, rather torture them.
Yes Juicy dont think anyone on here would argue against that...
yes as long as it is proved without a doubt .also i think a lump hammer and an anvil should come into play first whack
Who are you to decide the life of another? That makes you no better than them. A hard life prison term should do the trick.
I vote for death! Sick people like that don't change.
Unquestionably Yes
I agree.
or use them for medical testing for the remainder of thier life...with NO painkillers. we can at least get a couple cures out of them.
DEFINITLY
where there is unquestionable guilt...then yes they bloody well should. hope they all rot in hell. disgusting evil scum! but watch how many down thumbs i get by all the do gooders who think its ok for them to clutter up the prisons living it up with colour tvs like ian huntley. or even worse some morons think they can be reabilitated and move them into a hostel next door to a kiddies playground!
That sort of story certainly makes you want them to suffer the ultimate price!
Where do you draw the line though? This evil man actually trades in children and causes them to be abused and mudered. Should the paedophile who only downloads images get the same?
Don't misunderstand me, I know how that trade brings misery to thousands of children...but where do we draw the line?
Yes, that or Castrate them !!
i say no. not for any crime. if we have the death penalty we have to have people within our society that carry it out. are you prepared to do it ?
no you wouldn't.
would you be friends with a person that puts people to death for a living ? i think that once a society has moved on like we have you can't go back to it. usa will eventually see sense too.
I agree with you. Many of the pedophiles seem to do it over and over again. I have no pity for them.
We should take them out in a field tie their hands, let the parents beat them to death, and if they live through it, I volunteer to finish them off, as long as I can do it however I wish.
I truly think the death penalty (especially the way it's set up now), is too easy for them. They are killers (of childhood and innocence) and should be treated as the scum they are. I would love to be like a third world country and torture the hell out of them. Almost to the brink of death, then let them recover, and do it all over again. I can think of a lot of things that would be a worthy torture for those monsters. But, unfortunately, there are too many bleeding heart liberals who think they should have rights.
yes,, if anything happened to my little girl i would gladly take it upon myself to do the job! no problem.
Why Paedophiles and why not Murderers?
At times I am all for it, but then there are always miscariages of justice that make me think twice. If a member of my family or friends was sentenced to death only for years later to be found innocent how and what can be done to compensate the person who was tried and their innocent life taken away from them? Nothing!
Also, lets remember that althought he majority of Paedophiles are men, there are some women out there the same, so please don't come up with the usual "Castrate them" comments.
I hate paedophiles with a vengeance however I am 100% against hanging.I would lock them up %26 throw away the key.
or you could put them into womens prisons and just sit back and watch the women rip them to pieces
I would have the thought the answer is obvious......castration.
Edit. Frosty you are right..I had forgotten that these women often are far more evil than the male...Rosemary West, Myra Hindely......may others.
So the answer has to be Life....... Paedophiles both men and women often become murderers as well.
Yes and not just pedes but serial killers etc
Yes! But be generous and give child molesters ONE chance to rehabilitate. On the first offense, don't just jail them for a fixed term; jail them indefinitely and give them intensive therapy. Don't release them until/unless a PANEL of psychologists agrees that recidivism is highly unlikely. I'm willing to pay my share of the taxes for this humane treatment.
Fry all convicted second-offense child molesters!
Paedophiles who only look at pictures do not deserve such harsh treatment.
In cases like that one, absolutely! It's time we told these sub-humans that if they touch our children they DIE!
Should the death penalty be gone?
yes or no
Answer:
no we should kill dumb people
Yes.
no.
Yes
no if it can be proven beyond a doubt , then so be it
no
If anything it needs to be accelerated. Execution should come in a matter of weeks, not years. Execute the garbage and clean the trash out of society.
No
in most cases, but when you're dealing with psychos like the Columbine murderers, 9-11 terrorists, and Virginia Tech murderer, they should get it. The last thing we need is one of those psychos escaping from jail.
Yes...the state has no business killing it's citizens. The reason is that every time we execute a person that's innocent it makes a murderer out of every tax payer and I do not want murder carried out in my name.
No. It shouldnt be, but then I think that the laws of the Old west should be brought back.
If punishment was actually handed out rather than a slap on the hand, then crime would go down.
Seriously dont you think that if the next criminal had to face his victim who carried and gun, used it and could harm him, dont you think he would think twice about commiting crime?
I'm not sayin that the old west was without its fair share of crime, criminals and the like. It wasnt by any means.
But if the same laws then applied now, our crime rate would go down. Its amazing that in the country were there is the most laws, we have the greatest of injustices.
NO! In fact, we should put in an "Express lane" for people convicted of murder where there is no doubt of guilt!
No reason to suspect that the shooting was justified.
No reason to doubt the "chain of evidence", as in under police surveillance from committing the crime to arrest, or positive DNA evidence linking the killer to the crime.
Upon being found guilty under these circumstances, the killer should have 2 years, and only 2 years to disprove the prosecution's case.
Can't do it? FRY, baby, FRY!!!!
Answer:
no we should kill dumb people
Yes.
no.
Yes
no if it can be proven beyond a doubt , then so be it
no
If anything it needs to be accelerated. Execution should come in a matter of weeks, not years. Execute the garbage and clean the trash out of society.
No
in most cases, but when you're dealing with psychos like the Columbine murderers, 9-11 terrorists, and Virginia Tech murderer, they should get it. The last thing we need is one of those psychos escaping from jail.
Yes...the state has no business killing it's citizens. The reason is that every time we execute a person that's innocent it makes a murderer out of every tax payer and I do not want murder carried out in my name.
No. It shouldnt be, but then I think that the laws of the Old west should be brought back.
If punishment was actually handed out rather than a slap on the hand, then crime would go down.
Seriously dont you think that if the next criminal had to face his victim who carried and gun, used it and could harm him, dont you think he would think twice about commiting crime?
I'm not sayin that the old west was without its fair share of crime, criminals and the like. It wasnt by any means.
But if the same laws then applied now, our crime rate would go down. Its amazing that in the country were there is the most laws, we have the greatest of injustices.
NO! In fact, we should put in an "Express lane" for people convicted of murder where there is no doubt of guilt!
No reason to suspect that the shooting was justified.
No reason to doubt the "chain of evidence", as in under police surveillance from committing the crime to arrest, or positive DNA evidence linking the killer to the crime.
Upon being found guilty under these circumstances, the killer should have 2 years, and only 2 years to disprove the prosecution's case.
Can't do it? FRY, baby, FRY!!!!
Should the courts have the power to create crimes?
Answer:
I'm a little confused by your question. Courts don't create crimes, criminals create crimes. If you mean should laws be passed criminializing acts that were once not considered illegal, then yes, there need to be specific laws to address areas that were overlooked or not foreseen when the original law was written. Btw, it is the legislative body of the government that passes laws, not the judicial system.
No.
Why?
Because that would shift the balance of power. Courts are used simply to interpret the laws, and to find out if in accordance to the letter of the law, if someone broke the law. Giving them the right to create law would give judges a lot of power in a court room. It would then become if they like the way the law is written or not, or if they created the law how it is enforced.
Absolutely. If we vested this power in the judiciary, we could do away with the legislature and save buckets of cash. In addition, we could streamline the executive branch as well by making them answerable to courts instead of to the President or Governors.
Man, I'm excited by the idea. I'm glad I have a law degree, let's get this into effect so I can become a judge.
I will assume that your question refers to the power to declare an action illegal. If that is the case the answer is no, Courts do not have the power to create new crimes as they do not legislate.
No. That is properly the job of the legislature. (I assume that by "create" you mean "define".)
Should the Brits and Other Countries Stay Out of Americas Internal Affairs RE: Gun Control?
My opinion for the Brits and others. STAY OUT OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS. We have always sorted out our own problems and still can.
If your afraid to come here, stay in the UK. Yes where there are special armed police task force to deal with your rising gun crime. "Oh! but that isn't suppose to happen in your Utopia".
Do you remember in the early days of WW2, when England had its back to the wall. When you cried for help and ARMED AMERICANS sent you thousands of their own personal arms for your defense? Then never asked for payment or for their return. errrrrrr...Thank you!
Stay in your little cubical of a house, that your not even permitted to defend. Yea! You try to defend your home, family and property you can end up in jail and the criminal is made the victim.
Your King George tried to enforce arms control in the Americas on 19 April 1775, look what that got him.
This is my Opinion! 12 years US Army, 14 years Civilian Police. LEAA, NRA %26 American Legion
Answer:
LOL...I love it
The subjects of Britain gave up their self defense rights as well as the Canadians. Their violent crime rate in England alone has risen 17% and have you been to Toronto lately, jeez.
If they want in our affairs, they should at least repay the loan.
There is always going to be someone out there that knows better. As the Brits and everyone else can play the lost little sheep watching out for the big bad wolf if they want hoping that us Americans will come in and play Shepherd for them for me they will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead fingers.
Well maybe people will stay out of your affairs when you stay out of thiers iraq, vietnam the list goes on. Oh and by the way 19 April 1775 the only people capable of defeating the british was in fact the british themselves, more of a cival war i think. And yes you did get paid for the weapons in WW2, the only country to make a profit from the war, well done.
If your afraid to come here, stay in the UK. Yes where there are special armed police task force to deal with your rising gun crime. "Oh! but that isn't suppose to happen in your Utopia".
Do you remember in the early days of WW2, when England had its back to the wall. When you cried for help and ARMED AMERICANS sent you thousands of their own personal arms for your defense? Then never asked for payment or for their return. errrrrrr...Thank you!
Stay in your little cubical of a house, that your not even permitted to defend. Yea! You try to defend your home, family and property you can end up in jail and the criminal is made the victim.
Your King George tried to enforce arms control in the Americas on 19 April 1775, look what that got him.
This is my Opinion! 12 years US Army, 14 years Civilian Police. LEAA, NRA %26 American Legion
Answer:
LOL...I love it
The subjects of Britain gave up their self defense rights as well as the Canadians. Their violent crime rate in England alone has risen 17% and have you been to Toronto lately, jeez.
If they want in our affairs, they should at least repay the loan.
There is always going to be someone out there that knows better. As the Brits and everyone else can play the lost little sheep watching out for the big bad wolf if they want hoping that us Americans will come in and play Shepherd for them for me they will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead fingers.
Well maybe people will stay out of your affairs when you stay out of thiers iraq, vietnam the list goes on. Oh and by the way 19 April 1775 the only people capable of defeating the british was in fact the british themselves, more of a cival war i think. And yes you did get paid for the weapons in WW2, the only country to make a profit from the war, well done.
Should the borders of the US be militarized?
How else can we stop the flow?
Many countries have a shoot to kill policy, should we do the same?
How else can we be taken seriously?
Is there a 'nice' way to do it?
Answer:
yes yes yes.
2 words:
Land Mines
Yes, and ok, what is a nice way to do it. There is no nice way, we just round every illegal up ,and make them walk home.
I don't know where you live, but in Texas, border guards have dogs and guns.
yes
Extend our border...invade Mexico.
No! it should be fun by adding slides, swings, human-sling shots, horses so could be fun to cross the borders.
I agree.
I think you should militarize all the borders to keep Americans from escaping and menacing the rest of the world as they are doing now.
What a relief that somebody sees it our way.
I think it would do America more good to protect our own borders rather than protecting Iraq's.
A Guard in place is sufficient. But it must have authority to act or it is useless. A warning issued "Trespassers will be shot" means that.Do not BREAK INTO OUR COUNTRY! Or expect the consequences, this is OUR HOME.
YES! every other country has militarized borders...we should do the same to protect our country. i find it funny that if we do it we are racists and when other countries do it ...it's fine.
ok you red necks !!! why is the answer for you guys is to KILL ! KILL ! KILL ! Would it REALLY be better if everybody you didn't like was murdered? By who..YOU? What if everybody had the same "right"you feel you have to kill anybody you want. That, my fellow[?] AMERICAN ,is called anarchy%26chaos ! The policies of the RepubliCONS have always been on the side of BIG BUSINESS and our immigration problem would be managable if large employers paid a decent wage to lower wage AMERICANS and NOT hire illegal workers at slave wages. You try to live on min. wage !!
Many countries have a shoot to kill policy, should we do the same?
How else can we be taken seriously?
Is there a 'nice' way to do it?
Answer:
yes yes yes.
2 words:
Land Mines
Yes, and ok, what is a nice way to do it. There is no nice way, we just round every illegal up ,and make them walk home.
I don't know where you live, but in Texas, border guards have dogs and guns.
yes
Extend our border...invade Mexico.
No! it should be fun by adding slides, swings, human-sling shots, horses so could be fun to cross the borders.
I agree.
I think you should militarize all the borders to keep Americans from escaping and menacing the rest of the world as they are doing now.
What a relief that somebody sees it our way.
I think it would do America more good to protect our own borders rather than protecting Iraq's.
A Guard in place is sufficient. But it must have authority to act or it is useless. A warning issued "Trespassers will be shot" means that.Do not BREAK INTO OUR COUNTRY! Or expect the consequences, this is OUR HOME.
YES! every other country has militarized borders...we should do the same to protect our country. i find it funny that if we do it we are racists and when other countries do it ...it's fine.
ok you red necks !!! why is the answer for you guys is to KILL ! KILL ! KILL ! Would it REALLY be better if everybody you didn't like was murdered? By who..YOU? What if everybody had the same "right"you feel you have to kill anybody you want. That, my fellow[?] AMERICAN ,is called anarchy%26chaos ! The policies of the RepubliCONS have always been on the side of BIG BUSINESS and our immigration problem would be managable if large employers paid a decent wage to lower wage AMERICANS and NOT hire illegal workers at slave wages. You try to live on min. wage !!
Should the Bill of Rights be amended to include the following?
NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildre... hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."
Answer:
will watch for his running....thanks
No. By the way, The Bill of Rights is not the actual Constitution itself. It is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. I suggest you do some more research.....
Technically the United States has no official or state sponsored language.....
What is wrong with the current bill of rights????
if the Govt would just follow the COTUS we would have no problems.
Um, the "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" crap was added to American currency and to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s during the Cold War because the Soviet Union was officially atheist. Take your rightwing Jesus freak Republican agenda and shove it.
This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildre... hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."
Answer:
will watch for his running....thanks
No. By the way, The Bill of Rights is not the actual Constitution itself. It is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. I suggest you do some more research.....
Technically the United States has no official or state sponsored language.....
What is wrong with the current bill of rights????
if the Govt would just follow the COTUS we would have no problems.
Um, the "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" crap was added to American currency and to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s during the Cold War because the Soviet Union was officially atheist. Take your rightwing Jesus freak Republican agenda and shove it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)