If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
"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/ |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
"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/ |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
"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. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is all about highway safety
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." |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
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." |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
"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. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is all about highway safety
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. |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is all about highway safety
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. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is all about highway safety
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety | proffsl | USA & Canada | 0 | September 17th, 2007 09:50 AM |
Become an Activist for Better Health! Join Bio Pro's Company to promote the Safety Wireless Initiative! safety for Cell Phones & Bio Pro Technology! research Its a WIN WIN! | [email protected] | Asia | 0 | July 27th, 2007 03:41 AM |
Safety for Cell Phones-Mobile Hazards-Cell Phone Safety-Bio Pro Universal Cell Chip, Purchase from a Bio Pro Consultant, Destress EMF Radiation in Australia, South Africa, United States, New Zealand, and Canada!! | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | June 6th, 2007 03:47 AM |
Smart Card BIO PRO, Purchase products from Bio Pro Consultant,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa,Canada,A New Generation of wellness and safety, Safety for Electronics with Bio Pro | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | May 6th, 2007 06:07 PM |
Licensing tellys | [email protected] | Europe | 2 | October 12th, 2004 03:23 AM |