Back to Fox News Today

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Not even with a hands-free device?

you can talk with a hands free device. interestingly the law allows (well doesn't prohibit) you to txt while driving.

since it came in i've noticed less people talking on phones while driving, i hardly ever do it these days

[Wiglaf]

The ironic thing about this crusade for kids' rights is that kids are not active in participating in your organization on a national scale.

In this case, for a demographic to be discriminated against, that demographic needs to realize it. If they don't, and they don't, then that undercuts your arguments that they will be proactive and responsible members of the community.

If they can't defend themselves then they aren't interested. Then therefore adolescents should not be given the right to vote or participate in big-boy democracy. And that's really your main contention with your organization, not cell phone rights. On that issue, statistics speak for themselves, I think. If not, fine, let them drive with phones. ..that's more of an ordinance than a civil-rights issue.

Big point remains that they aren't capable of democracy.

[alva]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Is there a transcript?

PS. I get JohnT and OzzyKP's avatars confused because they both have babies. For a second until I read the name I thought, "wait, wtf is Ozzy doing posting here while he was in the interview!!?"

Same here.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The ironic thing about this crusade for kids' rights is that kids are not active in participating in your organization on a national scale.

In this case, for a demographic to be discriminated against, that demographic needs to realize it. If they don't, and they don't, then that undercuts your arguments that they will be proactive and responsible members of the community.

If they can't defend themselves then they aren't interested. Then therefore adolescents should not be given the right to vote or participate in big-boy democracy. And that's really your main contention with your organization, not cell phone rights. On that issue, statistics speak for themselves, I think. If not, fine, let them drive with phones. ..that's more of an ordinance than a civil-rights issue.

Big point remains that they aren't capable of democracy.

Ummm, most of our members are in high school. Most of our board (or at least most of the people running for the board this year) are in high school. Some are even in middle school.

Youth are definitely actively participating in the organization. Am I 17 anymore? No. But I was when I first got involved, but the drumbeat of time marches on. So rather than throw out our most experienced leaders we keep people around so they can keep this organization alive and healthy. There isn't anything scandolous about it.

We are a mixed organization though, plenty of people over and under 18. What is interesting though is how people criticize us from both directions. Either accusing us of being a bunch of adults who are making a big deal where none exists and youth couldn't care less. Or a bunch of whiney teens who will understand why youth rights isn't a big deal once they get older.

We are a bunch of youth who do care, and adults who still think youth rights is a big deal.


And finally, ordinances ARE civil rights issues. Simple ordinances are how Jim Crow laws existed. Simple store policies allowed all forms of discrimination. Just because people aren't being lynched doesn't mean its not an important civil rights issue.

[Theben]

We know from the research that passengers also distract, uh, young drivers, so anything that distracts a young driver is something that should, uh, be gotten rid of and we really wanna help young drivers focus on the task of driving.

I remember her saying that & wanting to comment on it at the time. Anything that distracts, huh? Say goodbye to billboards, streetsigns, and basically anything that might look interesting along the side of the road.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The ironic thing about this crusade for kids' rights is that kids are not active in participating in your organization on a national scale.

In this case, for a demographic to be discriminated against, that demographic needs to realize it. If they don't, and they don't, then that undercuts your arguments that they will be proactive and responsible members of the community.

If they can't defend themselves then they aren't interested. Then therefore adolescents should not be given the right to vote or participate in big-boy democracy. And that's really your main contention with your organization, not cell phone rights. On that issue, statistics speak for themselves, I think. If not, fine, let them drive with phones. ..that's more of an ordinance than a civil-rights issue.

Big point remains that they aren't capable of democracy.

By that reasoning you'd disenfranchise 2/3 of the electorate.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Theben


I remember her saying that & wanting to comment on it at the time. Anything that distracts, huh? Say goodbye to billboards, streetsigns, and basically anything that might look interesting along the side of the road.

Especially attractive looking women. Nothing more distracting than that. I think we should make women wear burkas, ya know, for highway safety.

[Wiglaf]

By that reasoning you'd disenfranchise 2/3 of the electorate.

I've seen 2/3 of the electorate get mobilized about abortion and the Iraq War. The last time 2/3 of the kid population got mobilized was to screw in those drive-in theater places.

For the youth movement to be worthwhile it needs to maintain that kids will be responsible members of the electorate. And yes Ozzy I would expect that a Youth Power board would be made up of mostly high schoolers, but I have a feeling your membership is not consistent across the board.

IE, I see 88 people on your message boards (only 5 are members; the others are just browsing) now and only a handful of chapters across the 50 states.

If I had looked at a woman's suffrage board back in the day I have a feeling I'd see something more substantial.

[OzzyKP]

It depends where in the history of woman's suffrage you look. In 1850 or 1900? Cause there is a big fricken difference. This movement is just beginning. If you want to make comparisons, you need to look shortly after the Seneca Falls convention for woman suffrage, that is the point at which we are at now. Heck, it might even be pre-seneca falls.

[OzzyKP]

Video!!!!!

http://www.youthrights.org/video.shtml

[Lawrence of Arabia]

wheres the play button?

[OzzyKP]

Its the big one on the left, looks like a triangle on its side pointing right.