TWODOGS, Why did you choose your new avatar?

[merrylander]

Don't forget that in rural areas that same kid may need to be able to drive a tractor along a public road hauling a trailer full of hay bales. He/she may be less than 16 but I'd a dman sight better trust their driving than some of the snot nose kids out here in the 'burbs.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Don't forget that in rural areas that same kid may need to be able to drive a tractor along a public road hauling a trailer full of hay bales. He/she may be less than 16 but I'd a dman sight better trust their driving than some of the snot nose kids out here in the 'burbs.

I drove on the farm starting at age 5 when my uncles would place me behind the wheel, place the truck in first gear and yell to me to turn it a little to the right or left as they hand loaded it. It is not relative to having a lower driving age on public roads however.
When a farm vehicle is on a public road it should not lower the standard for public safety which is what the driving age is about.

Speaking to D-Ray's post above again, it is far more dangerous driving on country roads at 55MPH than on city roads at 25 and usually stopped with traffic. Serious auto accidents do not take place in the cities as a rule, they do in the country side.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Nope. Some things are better regulated on the local level. For instance you will see younger driving ages in higly agricultural states. There, kids learn to drive in generally open spaces. That wouldn't work as well in highly congested urban areas, where driving is much more difficult, and where putting younger drivers on the road just adds to the congestion. Moreover, as a general rule urban areas provide greater access to public transportation, which would not be feasible in rural areas. Kids in the city would think nothing of using the subway to go on a date, whereas a kid in the suburbs who takes a date on the bus, would probably only have one date.

There are many other examples of why regulations that make sense in urban areas wouldn't make sense in more sparsely populated areas and vice versa. Also, weather an other geographic conditions have an effect. There's probably no need for regulations about studded snow tires in Florida, but there is in Minnesota.

Regards,

D-Ray

I agree. Different conditions in different localities may require different laws.
So long as the laws don't violate any basic Constitutional or Human rights, I think this flexibility afforded to the states is essential.

Dave

[d-ray657]

Different parts of the country have different concerns, different demographics, different traditions, and different community standards. There are some areas where federal regulation could extend where it hasn't, but the decision has been made that federalism works best in particular areas of governance. Many would say the federal authority spreads too wide, and others say that it doesn't do enough. That's the balance that has been struck in our democracy.

If you disagree with the community standards, you can work to change them on a local level, or you can find someplace where you are more comfortable with the community standards. The federal Constitution set limits on how far community standards can go as far as interfering with purely personal choices or free speech or imposing a draconian criminal procedure, but provides considerable leeway to the states.

There are some things that the combined resources of the country can better provide on a national level. Moreover federal regulations can work to prevent the interests of one state interfering with another. For example, if say Kansas City had sole control over the amount of waste that can be spilled into the air and the water, that air and water would not just stay in Kansas City. The air and water would move on to foul the environment for other places that had taken greater care of their air and water quality. A federal regulation that sets national standards for the maximum amount of waste that can be emitted provides a reasonable air standards for all.

While there is room for disagreement, the affordability of health care is an issue that has become a crisis. The combined resources of the nation can provide meaningful assistance to solve the problems.

There is a balance of power between the federal government and the states, and reasonable minds can differ about where the balance should be reached.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I drove on the farm starting at age 5 when my uncles would place me behind the wheel, place the truck in first gear and yell to me to turn it a little to the right or left as they hand loaded it. It is not relative to having a lower driving age on public roads however.
When a farm vehicle is on a public road it should not lower the standard for public safety which is what the driving age is about.

Speaking to D-Ray's post above again, it is far more dangerous driving on country roads at 55MPH than on city roads at 25 and usually stopped with traffic. Serious auto accidents do not take place in the cities as a rule, they do in the country side.

Sorry, perhaps I could have been clearer, I trust the driving skills of those rural kids because they know they are workin, they know that Dad's tractor and trailer were not cheap.

It is the snot nosed kids from the 'burbs who make me want to pull the automatic opener on my trunk so that they can get in. 55 MPH? you live in a different state than I do, I just wish I could get the little SOBs to slow down to 55.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by merrylander

It is the snot nosed kids from the 'burbs who make me want to pull the automatic opener on my trunk so that they can get in. 55 MPH? you live in a different state than I do, I just wish I could get the little SOBs to slow down to 55.

LOL, I know what you mean.

[spasmo55]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Different parts of the country have different concerns, different demographics, different traditions, and different community standards. There are some areas where federal regulation could extend where it hasn't, but the decision has been made that federalism works best in particular areas of governance. Many would say the federal authority spreads too wide, and others say that it doesn't do enough. That's the balance that has been struck in our democracy.

If you disagree with the community standards, you can work to change them on a local level, or you can find someplace where you are more comfortable with the community standards. The federal Constitution set limits on how far community standards can go as far as interfering with purely personal choices or free speech or imposing a draconian criminal procedure, but provides considerable leeway to the states.

There are some things that the combined resources of the country can better provide on a national level. Moreover federal regulations can work to prevent the interests of one state interfering with another. For example, if say Kansas City had sole control over the amount of waste that can be spilled into the air and the water, that air and water would not just stay in Kansas City. The air and water would move on to foul the environment for other places that had taken greater care of their air and water quality. A federal regulation that sets national standards for the maximum amount of waste that can be emitted provides a reasonable air standards for all.

While there is room for disagreement, the affordability of health care is an issue that has become a crisis. The combined resources of the nation can provide meaningful assistance to solve the problems.

There is a balance of power between the federal government and the states, and reasonable minds can differ about where the balance should be reached.

Regards,

D-Ray

Another excellant post D-Ray!!

I am an Iowan first and an American second. This may have some of you thinking I am not a patriot, I beg to differ. I am concerned with my own yard before I look into my neighbors. This is the very root of the issues brought up in this thread. We were a collection of states willing to work together for the good of all, a "Federated Republic", now we are one big mess as the rules are made to appease the populated areas, who for the most part are ignorant of any lifestyle unlike their own.

I cannot tell you how many times I have spoke with people that said "Iowa", where they grow the potatoes, duhhhhhh!

State governments are slowly being converted through laws and funding to nothing more than branch offices of the "Almighty Feds". It will be the demise of America. Fortunatly for me, the process seems to be moving slow enough that I will be dead before total conversion.

It was a beautiful dream, but I guess you must wake up, or not, either way it will be gone.

Ah, George Strait, think I go have a cold one and cook. Ya'll have a good day.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by spasmo55

Another excellant post D-Ray!!

I am an Iowan first and an American second. This may have some of you thinking I am not a patriot, I beg to differ. I am concerned with my own yard before I look into my neighbors. This is the very root of the issues brought up in this thread. .

No the root of the issue in this thread is blatant racism and how people may not understand how an action of their's is racist but once they do they become obligated to take responsibility for it.



I hope our most racist posters have learned something in the shadows as they have not left any posts in this thread.
Sorry spasmo, this is just to important to deviate from, sincerely.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by spasmo55

State governments are slowly being converted through laws and funding to nothing more than branch offices of the "Almighty Feds". It will be the demise of America. Fortunatly for me, the process seems to be moving slow enough that I will be dead before total conversion.

It was a beautiful dream, but I guess you must wake up, or not, either way it will be gone.

Iowa, that's where they grow potatos, right?

My dad's side of the family is from Iowa. I remember visiting a bunch of folks there when I was young, iirc one of them owned 'Boone Valley Implements' or some such. Corn, soy, friendly folks, tractors to drive, girls who were not afraid of bugs

I find it interesting that the founders considered the Fed to be a foriegn government! Worth pondering.

I'm glad someone finally stood up and explained to me that I'm a racist. I always thought I was an equal opportunity hater!

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by spasmo55

Another excellant post D-Ray!!

I am an Iowan first and an American second.

Geez, my naturalization certificate says I am a citizen of the United States, does that mean I have to move to D.C. and give up my vote.