Driver Licensing not about highway safety

proffsl wrote:

"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:

Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our
Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"!

You need to brush up on your definitions of legal terms.

Ad Hominem.


Pointing out your ignorance is not an ad hominem. It is just stating the
obvious.

"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:
"Alohacyberian" wrote:

LOL! Hilarious! The malcontented mouse who roared
because he can't get a driver license.

Care to put your money where your mouth is? Say $40,000?

Sure. Bring it on.

Then, deposit your $40,000 with a lawyer of your choosing, and provide
his contact information here.

I don't know where you live,

You don't know where I live, yet, in your own asshole manner, you
presume and pretend to have information about me even more personal
than those around me, who DO know where I live, have. You are
pathetic.


but lawyers don't do that sort of thing here.

I'm sure they would. They enjoy making money. But, I'm equally sure
you have no intention of putting YOUR MONEY where YOUR SLANDEROUS
MOUTH IS. Cheap shots are what you are mostly about.

Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:

Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize
our Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways as
"crap sites"!

You need to brush up on your definitions of legal terms.

Ad Hominem.

Pointing out your ignorance is not an ad hominem. It is just stating the
obvious.

Yet another Ad Hominem.

And, beyond your issuance of Ad Hominems, what is obvious is that all
of my claims are verified and proven. The Operation of Motor Vehicles
on our public highways is indeed a Right, recognized by our federal
courts and by our state courts.

I have no idea why that knowledge disturbs you so much that you must
resort to Ad Hominems and personal attacks, unless you view this
information as a threat to your imagined authoritarian stature.

wrote:
(Carole Allen) wrote:
proffsl

Point A: I have stated, and proven, that courts have recognized
our Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways:

That's ONE court, ONE state.

However, the decision he is citing CONTRADICTS him.

You are such a LIAR.

Our Right to Drive automobiles (operate motor vehicles) on our public
highways has been recognized:

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions. Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." - State of Idaho v. Mark
Wilder (2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

Clearly the Right to Drive automobiles (operate motor vehicles) on our
public highways has been recognized. Deny it if you wish to further
prove you are a foolish liar.

wrote:
(Carole Allen) wrote:
proffsl wrote:

Point A: I have stated, and proven, that courts have
recognized our Right to Drive automobiles on our public
highways:

That's ONE court, ONE state.

However, the decision he is citing CONTRADICTS him.

You are such a LIAR.

Our Right to Drive automobiles (operate motor vehicles) on our public
highways has been recognized:

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions. Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." - State of Idaho v. Mark
Wilder (2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

Clearly the Right to Drive automobiles (operate motor vehicles) on our
public highways has been recognized. Deny it if you wish to further
prove you are a foolish liar.

proffsl wrote:

You are such a LIAR.


WAAHHHHHH That's an ad homenum.

"proffsl" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:
Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our
Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"!

You need to brush up on your definitions of legal terms.

Ad Hominem.


Couldn't refute the argument, huh? KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and
NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 150 language translators!
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"proffsl" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Alohacyberian" wrote:

I don't know where you live,

You don't know where I live, yet, in your own asshole manner, you
presume and pretend to have information about me even more personal
than those around me, who DO know where I live, have. You are
pathetic.

I may be pathetic, but, I have a driver license. You don't. KM

--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and
NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 150 language translators!
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:
"Alohacyberian" wrote:

I don't know where you live,

You don't know where I live, yet, in your own asshole manner,
you presume and pretend to have information about me even
more personal than those around me, who DO know where I
live, have. You are pathetic.

I may be pathetic, but, I have a driver license. You don't.

What makes you so damn pathetic is that after you have been so
thoroughly proven wrong in regards to your ignorance of our Right to
operate motor vehicles on our public highways, your only resort is to
fabricate accusations against myself which you are completely and
pathetically unable to produce even one shread of evidence in support
of.

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions. Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." - State of Idaho v. Mark
Wilder (2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

http://proffsl.110mb.com/

On Oct 16, 3:39 pm, proffsl wrote:
wrote:
(Carole Allen) wrote:
proffsl

Point A: I have stated, and proven, that courts have recognized
our Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways:

That's ONE court, ONE state.

However, the decision he is citing CONTRADICTS him.

You are such a LIAR.

Listen, fuzznuts, if you wish to start personal abuse and insults once
again as you always seem to do, be prepared to get it right back in
your lying face.

Now, to the point. Nothing I said is a lie. What I said is true - the
court decision you have been citing CONTRADICTS you. Idaho vs Wilder -
and indeed, the underlying Idaho vs Pocatello - both UPHELD licensing.
This, bird brain, is what we call a CONTRADICTION of your position
that driver licensing is unconstitutional. The exact OPPOSITE was
found. Therefore, I told the TRUTH.

I do hope you get that straight and that you now refrain from further
initiation of personal insults. Got it?

Our Right to Drive automobiles (operate motor vehicles) on our public
highways has been recognized:

Indeed, but only with a license. You cannot illogically leave out this
integral part of, as we have shown you repeatedly for 18 months, the
ordinary way of conducting or travel by motor vehicle.

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions. Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." - State of Idaho v. Mark
Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

This case UPHOLDS licensing. As I said, it CONTRADICTS you.

You cannot accept one sentence from that decision and hold it apart
from the body of the decision.

Clearly the Right to Drive automobiles (operate motor vehicles) on our
public highways has been recognized. Deny it if you wish to further
prove you are a foolish liar.

What CONTRADICTS you is the full ruling itself which holds the exact
OPPOSITE of your long-held and long-refuted false claims. So YOU
continue to post it and prove YOU are a foolish liar. I have told the
truth. You refuse to accept it and persist in your utterly disproven
claims.

You are wrong and have been proven so.