Driver Licensing not about highway safety

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
proffsl wrote:

Read about it at: http://snip.com

Congratulations. You finally inspired me to filter your posts in this
group. This is what, the fourth or fifth time in the last week and half
that you have posted this crap.

"A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject."
~ Winston Churchill
--
(-: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
ups.com...
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote in message
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote in message
If I wanted your advice, I'd first start kicking your ass until you
were smart enough to give advice, then I'd stomp it out of you.
Are you sure you want to be trying to give me advice?

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

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

Sure. Bring it on. 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
ups.com...
"Alohacyberian" wrote:

I ain't exactly quakin' in my boots, dearie.

And, I ain't exactly seeking your advice, dumbass.


Yeah? Well, I gave it anyway. Your impotent protest is a case of too
little, too late. Shouldn't you be studying for your driver license test?
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 in message
...
"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
proffsl wrote:

Read about it at: http://snip.com

Congratulations. You finally inspired me to filter your posts in this
group. This is what, the fourth or fifth time in the last week and half
that you have posted this crap.

"A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject."
~ Winston Churchill

Delicious, simply delicious...as per Keith's ducking my question:

"Do you agree that a maker of a statement is accountable for that
statement? A simple 'yes' or 'no' from you will suffice."

except for his six year old kid's reply "Yes or no. KM," the Keith Martin
of non sequiturs, red herrings, and ad hominems, and the Alvin Toda of
crawling under that rock so as to avoid the question. And now of ignoring
totally my reminders that he has yet to answer my question. Of course, the
Churchill quote can be applied to me, persistent as I am to point out to all
here that Keith continues to duck answer a rather simple, straightforward,
"yes" or "no" question quite relevant to what he himself posts here. But
even more delicious and even more ironic is that what he himself has posted
is an excellent characterization of him himself and his continued ducking of
my question. Trust me, folks, the day he does answer my question - however
he does answer it - is the day I stop reminding him if only because there
would...on that day...be no need to keep reminding him.

Quack, quack.

Dave Smith wrote:

He used crap cites to support his strange conclusions,

Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our Right
to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"! And, as
my conclusion is also that we have the Right to Drive automobiles on
our public highways, then I suppose that's "strange" that my
conclusion coincides with the courts.

"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

In the case above, the courts recognize our Right to Drive the
automobile on our public highways, but goes on to suggest that police
powers are necessary for the "regulation" of this Right:

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the
exercise of its police power." -- State of Idaho v. Mark Wilder
(2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

But, then comes the question as to what is "reasonable", as this same
court also recognized in their saying:

"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws
concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the people so long as
the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable." -- State of Idaho
v. Mark Wilder (2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

And, my claim is that Driver Licensing IS INDEED "arbitrary and
unreasonable", thus my claim that Driver Licensing serves no purpose
to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.
In support of this claim, I present evidence that about 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence:

"The majority of car accidents are caused by irresponsible driving
behavior. Statistics also show that 98% of car accidents involve a
single distracted driver." - http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...accidents.html

"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs, in the USA, or Road
Traffic Accidents, RTAs, in Europe) involve some degree of driver
behavior combined with one of the other three factors. Drivers always
try to blame road conditions, equipment failure, or other drivers for
those accidents. When the facts are truthfully presented, however, the
behavior of the implicated driver is usually the primary cause. Most
are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver behavior." -
http://www.smartmotorist.com/acc/acc.htm

Clearly, these cites and many more indicate that negligence is the
primary cause of automobile accidents, negligence by people who have
proven they CAN drive safely, but WILL NOT. Driver licensing only
tests if one CAN drive safely, not if the WILL. Fact is though,
virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive safely. That is not
the question, the question is WILL they drive safely.

I provided a cite that lists the dates at which each state initiated
driver licensing, and when that state initiated driver licensing
tests, showing that the average time between the initiation of driver
licensing and the driver licensing tests was 8.34 years. And, that the
first state to initiate driver licensing was Missouri in 1903 and that
it was also the last state to initiate driver licensing tests in 1052.
(source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl230.pdf ) This alone
proves that driver licensing wasn't initiated for any purpose of
highway safety.


gets shot down every time he does,

Not once have they actually even pretended to go to the effort
involved in the process of "shooting down" anything I've said. To
people like Dave, and K_flynn, at best, "shoot down" means "I said
you're wrong, and that's all the proof that is necessary to prove
you're wrong",,,


and then turns around and posts it all over again. He has some
serious problems. He reminds me of someone in another group who
posts way too many messages every day, and he has developed a
following of detractors wo shoot him down every time he posts.

,,, or, at worse, it means to simply let loose a stream of personal
attacks and insults.


It doesn't say uch for them that they just can't leave him alone,
but the guy thrives on the abuse they heap on him. This brainless
twit is not much different. It's a sad case of masochistic mental
masturbation.

And now, according to Dave, if I don't surrender the truth to the
jackals then run and hide at the first hint of personal attacks from
jackals like himself, or k_flynn, then I am a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

Dave Smith wrote:

He used crap cites to support his strange conclusions,

Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our Right
to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"! And, as
my conclusion is also that we have the Right to Drive automobiles on
our public highways, then I suppose that's "strange" that my
conclusion coincides with the courts.

"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

In the case above, the courts recognize our Right to Drive the
automobile on our public highways, but goes on to suggest that police
powers are necessary for the "regulation" of this Right:

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the
exercise of its police power." -- State of Idaho v. Mark Wilder
(2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

But, then comes the question as to what is "reasonable", as this same
court also recognized in their saying:

"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws
concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the people so long as
the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable." -- State of Idaho
v. Mark Wilder (2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

And, my claim is that Driver Licensing IS INDEED "arbitrary and
unreasonable", thus my claim that Driver Licensing serves no purpose
to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.
In support of this claim, I present evidence that about 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence:

"The majority of car accidents are caused by irresponsible driving
behavior. Statistics also show that 98% of car accidents involve a
single distracted driver." - http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...accidents.html

"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs, in the USA, or Road
Traffic Accidents, RTAs, in Europe) involve some degree of driver
behavior combined with one of the other three factors. Drivers always
try to blame road conditions, equipment failure, or other drivers for
those accidents. When the facts are truthfully presented, however, the
behavior of the implicated driver is usually the primary cause. Most
are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver behavior." -
http://www.smartmotorist.com/acc/acc.htm

Clearly, these cites and many more indicate that negligence is the
primary cause of automobile accidents, negligence by people who have
proven they CAN drive safely, but WILL NOT. Driver licensing only
tests if one CAN drive safely, not if the WILL. Fact is though,
virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive safely. That is not
the question, the question is WILL they drive safely.

I provided a cite that lists the dates at which each state initiated
driver licensing, and when that state initiated driver licensing
tests, showing that the average time between the initiation of driver
licensing and the driver licensing tests was 8.34 years. And, that the
first state to initiate driver licensing was Missouri in 1903 and that
it was also the last state to initiate driver licensing tests in 1052.
(source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl230.pdf ) This alone
proves that driver licensing wasn't initiated for any purpose of
highway safety.


gets shot down every time he does,

Not once have they actually even pretended to go to the effort
involved in the process of "shooting down" anything I've said. To
people like Dave, and K_flynn, at best, "shoot down" means "I said
you're wrong, and that's all the proof that is necessary to prove
you're wrong",,,


and then turns around and posts it all over again. He has some
serious problems. He reminds me of someone in another group who
posts way too many messages every day, and he has developed a
following of detractors wo shoot him down every time he posts.

,,, or, at worse, it means to simply let loose a stream of personal
attacks and insults.


It doesn't say uch for them that they just can't leave him alone,
but the guy thrives on the abuse they heap on him. This brainless
twit is not much different. It's a sad case of masochistic mental
masturbation.

And now, according to Dave, if I don't surrender the truth to the
jackals then run and hide at the first hint of personal attacks from
jackals like himself, or k_flynn, then I am a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote in message
"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. KM

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

On Oct 13, 6:01 am, proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:

He used crap cites to support his strange conclusions,

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

No, Proffs, Dave considers "crap cites" to be your continually misused
and misrepresented and even fabricated court cites where you cobble
together your own Frankenstein monster of an argument by injudiciously
copying dicta from unrelated court case that have NOTHING to do with
licensing, grafting them onto other dicta selectively taken from court
cased that UPHELD licensing, and making the completely disproven and
phony claim that licensing is unconstitutional when in fact it ahs
been proven to you repeatedly that this is not the case.

That is what a crap cite is. The sites on which you found your "cites"
are crap if they also commit the dame factual, logical and legal
errors that you have openly committed and which have been amply proven
to you as wrong.

And, as
my conclusion is also that we have the Right to Drive automobiles on
our public highways, then I suppose that's "strange" that my
conclusion coincides with the courts.

You have selectively presented your claim here - you say you have a
right to drive without a license yet not one single solitary court in
the land that has considered this question agrees. So you are NOT
coinciding with the courts. Again you misrepresent the situation as
though the courts agree with you when they do not. This is
misrepresentation on your part. In other posts, you attack the courts
as part of the konspiracy yet you now want to appear that they agree
with you. Strange.

"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

BWAAAHAAHAHAAAAAA!!!

Proffs, read the opening of the decision of YOUR VERY OWN CITE:

"Judgment of conviction for driving without a license, affirmed."

The very man whose case you cite as evidence that licensing is
unconstitutional WAS CONVICTED OF DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE!
Bwahhahaaahaaaa!! Even you must see the humor in this! And this is why
Dave and I and countless other citizens who believe in the
Constitution say that your cites ARE crap - Immediately after
complaining about our saying that, you hand us yet another misleading
and misrepresented claim. You actually post a cite to a case the
UPHELD a conviction for driving without a license as support for your
claim that licensing is unconstitutional. That is insulting.

ALL YOUR CITES ARE BELONG TO US!!!

Plus in your claim, you left pout an essential part and this is why
your argument is fallacious. You cannot leave out an essential
component of what the courts have rules is the ordinary and legal way
to operate vehicles on our public rights of way. Otherwise, we are
left with your support of the right of infants and dogs and cats to
drive unless and until they kill someone.

In the case above, the courts recognize our Right to Drive the
automobile on our public highways, but goes on to suggest that police
powers are necessary for the "regulation" of this Right:

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the
exercise of its police power." -- State of Idaho v. Mark Wilder
(2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

CORRECTAMUNDO!!!

But, then comes the question as to what is "reasonable", as this same
court also recognized in their saying:

"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws
concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the people so long as
the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable." -- State of Idaho
v. Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

True dat!

And, my claim is that Driver Licensing IS INDEED "arbitrary and
unreasonable",

But that claim of yours already has thoroughly been proven to be
false, specious and arbitrary and unreasonable in its own right.

thus my claim that Driver Licensing serves no purpose
to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.

And that claim is summarily dismissed as incorrect and disproven.

In support of this claim, I present evidence that about 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence:

This is your famous misrepresentation of a study that doe NOT say what
you claim. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and your
continued use of this false citation is insulting. When you have been
shown the truth and still repeat the lies, you deserve the scorn that
is heaped upon you.

gets shot down every time he does,

Not once have they actually even pretended to go to the effort
involved in the process of "shooting down" anything I've said. To
people like Dave, and K_flynn, at best, "shoot down" means "I said
you're wrong, and that's all the proof that is necessary to prove
you're wrong",,,

The proof against you is memorialized in a 1,700-post thread in which
you were overwhelmingly defeated and proven wrong. You could benefit
by rereading it all and reconstructing your efforts into a campaign to
eliminate licensing on other grounds. I could support that, but I will
not support your continual lies and claims of konspiracy.

and then turns around and posts it all over again. He has some
serious problems. He reminds me of someone in another group who
posts way too many messages every day, and he has developed a
following of detractors wo shoot him down every time he posts.

,,, or, at worse, it means to simply let loose a stream of personal
attacks and insults.

Yes, that is your patented tried and try tactic when you have been
thoroughly disproven. You initiated personal attacks and insults last
year, and you did it again this year. This is what you always do. The
evidence of this is beyond questioning.

It doesn't say uch for them that they just can't leave him alone,
but the guy thrives on the abuse they heap on him. This brainless
twit is not much different. It's a sad case of masochistic mental
masturbation.

And now, according to Dave, if I don't surrender the truth to the
jackals then run and hide at the first hint of personal attacks from
jackals like himself, or k_flynn, then I am a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

I guess you couldn't have said it better yourself, then. Except for
the part about you "surrendering the truth" since all you have is a
pack of lies and misrepresentations, which we have proven. But no, we
haven't run and hid from you when you first initiate personal attacks.
People like you are a dime a dozen.

Haahaahaaaaa!! You had to post your drivel TWICE because you forgot to
change the subject back to your LIES. I fixed it for you again.


On Oct 13, 6:01 am, proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:

He used crap cites to support his strange conclusions,

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

No, Proffs, Dave considers "crap cites" to be your continually misused
and misrepresented and even fabricated court cites where you cobble
together your own Frankenstein monster of an argument by injudiciously
copying dicta from unrelated court case that have NOTHING to do with
licensing, grafting them onto other dicta selectively taken from court
cased that UPHELD licensing, and making the completely disproven and
phony claim that licensing is unconstitutional when in fact it ahs
been proven to you repeatedly that this is not the case.

That is what a crap cite is. The sites on which you found your "cites"
are crap if they also commit the dame factual, logical and legal
errors that you have openly committed and which have been amply proven
to you as wrong.

And, as
my conclusion is also that we have the Right to Drive automobiles on
our public highways, then I suppose that's "strange" that my
conclusion coincides with the courts.

You have selectively presented your claim here - you say you have a
right to drive without a license yet not one single solitary court in
the land that has considered this question agrees. So you are NOT
coinciding with the courts. Again you misrepresent the situation as
though the courts agree with you when they do not. This is
misrepresentation on your part. In other posts, you attack the courts
as part of the konspiracy yet you now want to appear that they agree
with you. Strange.

"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

BWAAAHAAHAHAAAAAA!!!

Proffs, read the opening of the decision of YOUR VERY OWN CITE:

"Judgment of conviction for driving without a license, affirmed."

The very man whose case you cite as evidence that licensing is
unconstitutional WAS CONVICTED OF DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE!
Bwahhahaaahaaaa!! Even you must see the humor in this! And this is why
Dave and I and countless other citizens who believe in the
Constitution say that your cites ARE crap - Immediately after
complaining about our saying that, you hand us yet another misleading
and misrepresented claim. You actually post a cite to a case the
UPHELD a conviction for driving without a license as support for your
claim that licensing is unconstitutional. That is insulting.

ALL YOUR CITES ARE BELONG TO US!!!

Plus in your claim, you left pout an essential part and this is why
your argument is fallacious. You cannot leave out an essential
component of what the courts have rules is the ordinary and legal way
to operate vehicles on our public rights of way. Otherwise, we are
left with your support of the right of infants and dogs and cats to
drive unless and until they kill someone.

In the case above, the courts recognize our Right to Drive the
automobile on our public highways, but goes on to suggest that police
powers are necessary for the "regulation" of this Right:

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the
exercise of its police power." -- State of Idaho v. Mark Wilder
(2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

CORRECTAMUNDO!!!

But, then comes the question as to what is "reasonable", as this same
court also recognized in their saying:

"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws
concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the people so long as
the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable." -- State of Idaho
v. Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

True dat!

And, my claim is that Driver Licensing IS INDEED "arbitrary and
unreasonable",

But that claim of yours already has thoroughly been proven to be
false, specious and arbitrary and unreasonable in its own right.

thus my claim that Driver Licensing serves no purpose
to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.

And that claim is summarily dismissed as incorrect and disproven.

In support of this claim, I present evidence that about 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence:

This is your famous misrepresentation of a study that doe NOT say what
you claim. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and your
continued use of this false citation is insulting. When you have been
shown the truth and still repeat the lies, you deserve the scorn that
is heaped upon you.

gets shot down every time he does,

Not once have they actually even pretended to go to the effort
involved in the process of "shooting down" anything I've said. To
people like Dave, and K_flynn, at best, "shoot down" means "I said
you're wrong, and that's all the proof that is necessary to prove
you're wrong",,,

The proof against you is memorialized in a 1,700-post thread in which
you were overwhelmingly defeated and proven wrong. You could benefit
by rereading it all and reconstructing your efforts into a campaign to
eliminate licensing on other grounds. I could support that, but I will
not support your continual lies and claims of konspiracy.

and then turns around and posts it all over again. He has some
serious problems. He reminds me of someone in another group who
posts way too many messages every day, and he has developed a
following of detractors wo shoot him down every time he posts.

,,, or, at worse, it means to simply let loose a stream of personal
attacks and insults.

Yes, that is your patented tried and try tactic when you have been
thoroughly disproven. You initiated personal attacks and insults last
year, and you did it again this year. This is what you always do. The
evidence of this is beyond questioning.

It doesn't say uch for them that they just can't leave him alone,
but the guy thrives on the abuse they heap on him. This brainless
twit is not much different. It's a sad case of masochistic mental
masturbation.

And now, according to Dave, if I don't surrender the truth to the
jackals then run and hide at the first hint of personal attacks from
jackals like himself, or k_flynn, then I am a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

I guess you couldn't have said it better yourself, then. Except for
the part about you "surrendering the truth" since all you have is a
pack of lies and misrepresentations, which we have proven. But no, we
haven't run and hid from you when you first initiate personal attacks.
People like you are a dime a dozen.

wrote:
proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:

He used crap cites to support his strange conclusions,

Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our Right
to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"! And, as
my conclusion is also that we have the Right to Drive automobiles on
our public highways, then I suppose that's "strange" that my
conclusion coincides with the courts.

You have selectively presented your claim here - you say you have a
right to drive without a license yet not one single solitary court in
the land that has considered this question agrees.

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

"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

There can be no reasonable denial that the courts above have
recognized our "right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways"
In this recognition, no appendage is added to this Right, as you have
often falsely claimed. Point A is affirmed.

Point B: I have also stated, and proven, that dispite those courts
recognizing our Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways,
they choose to circumvent this Right by their employment of a police
power:

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the exercise of its police power." -- State of Idaho v.
Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/
idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

This is not an appendage to our "right to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways", but instead a circumvention of that Right by the
employment of a police power. Point B is affirmed.

Point C: A police power must not be arbitrary or unreasonable:

"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the
people so long as the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable."
-- State of Idaho v. Mark Wilder (2003) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

Of these facts, you only prove yourself to be a fool to continue to
deny. Point C is affirmed.


And, my claim is that Driver Licensing IS INDEED "arbitrary and
unreasonable", thus my claim that Driver Licensing serves no
purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't
already serve.

And that claim is summarily dismissed as incorrect and disproven.

summarily - "done without delay or formality : quickly executed"

In other words, you have "dismissed as incorrect and disproven" more
as a reflex, without any substantive thought or consideration, much
less evidence.


In support of this claim, I present evidence that about 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence:

This is your famous misrepresentation of a study that doe NOT say
what you claim.

Instead of expecting us to honor your summarily issued dispute, why
don't you elaborate? My claim is that 98% of automobile accidents are
caused by willful acts of negligence. My supporting evidence is:

"The majority of car accidents are caused by irresponsible driving
behavior. Statistics also show that 98% of car accidents involve a
single distracted driver." - http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...accidents.html

"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs, in the USA, or Road
Traffic Accidents, RTAs, in Europe) involve some degree of driver
behavior combined with one of the other three factors. Drivers always
try to blame road conditions, equipment failure, or other drivers for
those accidents. When the facts are truthfully presented, however, the
behavior of the implicated driver is usually the primary cause. Most
are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver behavior." -
http://www.smartmotorist.com/acc/acc.htm

Googling "Primary Cause of Automobile Accidents" clearly returns
preponderous quantities of evidence that the primary cause of
automobile accidents is negligence. Given this preponderance of
evidence, I fail to see how you can, with any shred of credibility,
deny that 95% to 98% of automobile accidents are caused by negligence.

Now, in your "summarily" hasty and clumsy fashion, I suppose you might
be trying to dispute the whole by disputing a part. In this case, you
might be trying to dispute the fact that "95% to 98% of automobile
accidents are caused by negligence" by disputing that such negligence
was willful.

You might as well attempt to dispute that "Monarch butterflies EAGERLY
migrate south" as if you are disputing that "Monarch butterflies
migrate south".

But, back to the point, negligent driving isn't because one CAN NOT
drive safely, but rather instead because they CAN but WILL NOT drive
safely. I would dare say that of those 98% who are negligent, that
virtually 100% of them CAN drive safely. Therefore, we are only left
with the fact that they WILL NOT drive safely.


This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and your continued
use of this false citation is insulting.

When you say "false citation", are you claiming that my cites point to
nowhere, that I have falsely quoted them, or that the cites themself
contain false information? Or, are you merely saying that my cites
don't say what you'd like to say I'm saying?

I think it is the latter, as you did in the opening of this post,
saying:

"you say you have a right to drive without a license "

Where in fact, I am saying:

Point A: "we have the Right to Drive Automobiles on our public
highways"

and:

Point B: "That Right is being circumvented by a police power"

and:

Point C: "Police powers must not be arbitrary and unreasonable"

and:

Point D: "Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that
laws against endangerment didn't already serve."

Therefore, those police powers circumventing our Right to Drive
automobiles on our public highways are indeed "arbitrary and
unreasonable".


It doesn't say uch for them that they just can't leave him alone,
but the guy thrives on the abuse they heap on him. This brainless
twit is not much different. It's a sad case of masochistic mental
masturbation.

And now, according to Dave, if I don't surrender the truth to the
jackals then run and hide at the first hint of personal attacks from
jackals like himself, or k_flynn, then I am a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

I guess you couldn't have said it better yourself, then. Except for
the part about you "surrendering the truth" since all you have is a
pack of lies and misrepresentations, which we have proven. But no,
we haven't run and hid from you when you first initiate personal
attacks. People like you are a dime a dozen.

Then, one might begin to suspect you are a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation." Except for the fact that is it YOU who
initiates the personal attacks as this thread and numberous others
testify to.