The punishment should fit the crime. By your argument (you deserve whatever punishment you get if you commit the crime) we could give people the death penalty for speeding. If people dont want to get their heads chopped off they should not make the bad choices that lead to conviction as speeders. If a 16 year is considered old enough to drive in the first place then hes old enough to have considered the possible consequences (20 mph over the limit is too fast no matter whether they're 16 or 60). Keep your foot off the accelerator, wear your seatbelt, and signal before you change lanes and youre not going to have these issues. Make the Choice to do otherwise and you have chosen the consequences.

actually useful things) will be employed by the government for a miniscule wage doing jobs that noone wants to do. like 1 thousand dollars a year for digging ditches. I think this would be a good incentive to get people to get real jobs that would give them real spending money, while hopefully giving us a productive work force to work on infrastructure and the like. But, I may be wrong, and if i am im sure youll tell me.if i left anything out ill try to clarify it as well

I'd like to get peoples input on an idea ive had. Im not particularly invested in it, so be honest and as critical as you like. Also, please judge it on economic grounds as opposed to political or moral, preferably backed up by numbers. The government gets rid of all social welfare programs, including medicare, medicaid, food stamps, social security, etc. (good start right; wait, it gets worse). Instead, it taxes income at a flat rate such that everyone receives enough money to live on (say about 50 grand). Now, obviously this wouldnt exactly encourage employment. but not working isnt an option. Anyone who cannot find a job in the private sector or in real gov't jobs (not just mindless bureaucracy; im talking policemen, firemen,

later in the paragraph he also says "some people pay nothing at all". again, Im sure this doesnt apply to the vast majority of educated readers but I think he should be more careful if he wants to promote a truthful, intelligent dialogue

Ive seen people on this site before get angry over the point "half of Americans dont pay taxes", with some liberals saying conservatives deliberately mislead with their wording and some conservatives saying they always make it clear they refer only to federal income tax, but this seemed like a particularly misleading example, which may even go so far as to promote class warfare against the poor (which I'm sure Mr. Hawkins didnt mean to do. I would bet that he just didnt realize that it could be misleading, because it seems so obvious to him)

I'd like to clarify one small point. Mr. Hawkins says "the top 10% of Americans pay 69.9% of the money we take in from the income tax while 47 percent of Americans don't even pay a single dollar a year". This is a bit misleading because 47 percent of Americans pay quite a few dollars every year, in the form of sales taxes and other taxes that are not the income tax. Someone who knew that would probably understand that Mr. Hawkins was only referring to the income tax, but I think the wording is extremely misleading, making it seem like 47 percent of Americans never pay any money whatsoever to the government, which is obviously false (unless theyve figured out some way to avoid paying sales tax).

the author refers to president obama turning down a bipartisan debt deal. its possible ive missed something, but i was pretty sure nothing had passed both houses of congress and been passed to his desk yet. in my mind, then, this deal must either refer to one of those short term deals that the president said he would veto, or cut cap and balance. if its a short term deal then never mind, but im not sure its completely accurate to call the CCB bipartisan. didnt only 5 democrats vote for it? im not commenting on whether the CCB is a good idea or not, but i think calling it bipartisan may be a bit misleading. of course, if youre not actually referring to CCB then i cheerfully withdraw and would like to know to which deal the author is referrin

well georgia boy, i guess we disagree about this. thanks for your thoughts. god bless

i think i remember hearing about the underwear bomber's father reporting him to the FBI as suspicious, but im not quite 100 percent sure. and please google muslims against terrorism. also, im not sure if its you or townhall creating the problem but you posted this like 4 straight times lol

im glad to hear Mr. Buchanan condemn guilt by association. so we wont have to hear about Obama and Alinsky or Obama and Jeremiah Wright anymore, and the media can skip over reporting any dubious connections any of the republican presidential candidates have.