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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote: Dave Smith wrote: proffsl wrote: Dave Smith wrote: The courts are retroactive. It doesn't help much if an unlicensed driver kills someone and goes to jail or pays a fine. It is too late. Better to have that person demonstrate ahead of time that they can drive.... and to have them know that their *privilege* to drive can be suspended or revoked. Do you presume that you can somehow punish people for driving without a license BEFORE they actually drive without a license? No, you sitll have to wait until they actually commit the act before you can punish them. I don't know if you're doing this deliberately, or merely due to brainwash programming, but you are attempting to employ baffling bull****. Have you misled yourself into thinking this is the type of question rational human asks? You're avoiding the question with a question. Do you presume that you can showhow punish people for driving without a license BEFORE they actually drive without a license? Get a clue. It was a [polite way of saying that you are too stupid to waste my time on. Oh my Dave, is somebody getting their nose bent out of shape by my line of questioning? Tisk tisk, Dave. Anyway, Dave. Your original statement was how "The courts are retroactive". I suppose the concept of actually wanting until somebody commits a crime before denying them of their Rights disturbs you. Regardless, let's examine the rest of what you said: Then you said: "It doesn't help much if an unlicensed driver kills someone and goes to jail or pays a fine. It is too late." As if it makes it okay if it's a licensed driver that kills someone? It would still be to late, Dave. And, once again, I have to ask the question: Do you presume that you can showhow punish people for driving without a license BEFORE they actually get caught driving without a license? And, finally, you said: "Better to have that person demonstrate ahead of time that they can drive.... and to have them know that their *privilege* to drive can be suspended or revoked." Now, beside the fact that virtually everybody CAN drive safely, I have to wonder how this is any different from laws against Endangerment or Harm, where people know that their RIGHT to Drive, or even their Right of Liberty can be suspended or revoked? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Dave, let me ask you two simple questions:
A) Do you agree we have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways? b) What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
proffsl wrote:
Dave, let me ask you two simple questions: A) Do you agree we have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways? Yes, as we went through last year. b) What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days? Properly licensed and insured operators of motor vehicles, again as your own cites have proven but you cannot seem to get beyond. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Sep 25, 5:34 am, proffsl wrote:
wrote: proffsl wrote: Dave, let me ask you two simple questions: A) Do you agree we have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways? Yes, as we went through last year. b) What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days? Properly licensed and insured operators of motor vehicles, again as your own cites have proven but you cannot seem to get beyond. Gosh Dave, you've changed! Oh! Wait, you're not Dave. You're that guy who thinks it's cute to "fix my posts". Get used to it. This is usenet. If you want a private conversation with Dave, take it to email. I don't think it's cute to fix your posts; I think it's correcting your error. Your failure to comprehend the facts and truth after being repeatedly corrected on them is far from "cute." No, the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days is "Driving the Automobile". But as we have proven repeatedly over the past year -- *only with licensing and registration.* Courts ruled on this ordinary way many many decades ago. You cannot validly leave it out. Neither Licensing nor Insurance is a form of Locomotion. It is an inherent part of the ordinary way. Your failure to acknowledge it doesn't change that. We have the Right to Drive the Automobile for personal travel on our public highways. Only with a license as even your own court cites have repeatedly shown. Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve. It enhances safety and public welfare, as we proved last year to you. Read about it at:http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_lice...for_safety.php I fixed your link! |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
wrote:
proffsl wrote: wrote: proffsl wrote: Dave, let me ask you two simple questions: A) Do you agree we have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways? Yes, as we went through last year. b) What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days? Properly licensed and insured operators of motor vehicles, again as your own cites have proven but you cannot seem to get beyond. No, the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days is "Driving the Automobile". But as we have proven repeatedly over the past year -- *only with licensing and registration.* Courts ruled on this ordinary way many many decades ago. You cannot validly leave it out. Neither Licensing nor Insurance is a form of Locomotion. It is an inherent part of the ordinary way. Your failure to acknowledge it doesn't change that. You're being absurd. Licensing and Insurance IS NOT an inherent part of Locomotion. You are grasping for straws. We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public Right of Ways. The Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways is Driving the Automobile. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
proffsl wrote:
wrote: proffsl wrote: wrote: proffsl wrote: Dave, let me ask you two simple questions: A) Do you agree we have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways? Yes, as we went through last year. b) What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days? Properly licensed and insured operators of motor vehicles, again as your own cites have proven but you cannot seem to get beyond. No, the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days is "Driving the Automobile". But as we have proven repeatedly over the past year -- *only with licensing and registration.* Courts ruled on this ordinary way many many decades ago. You cannot validly leave it out. Neither Licensing nor Insurance is a form of Locomotion. It is an inherent part of the ordinary way. Your failure to acknowledge it doesn't change that. You're right, I am being absurd. Licensing and Insurance IS an inherent part of Locomotion in the ORDINARY WAY for conducting the right of travel on the public highways these days. All courts that have considered the matter have agreed with you and disagreed with me. Ineed to recognize this and move on. I was merely grasping for straws. We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public Right of Ways, and as ALL COURTS that have considered the matter have agreed, with the people through their elected representatives, it is p[roperly constitutional for public welfare and safety to require that licensing. I apologize for having been so wrong for so long. The Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways is Driving the Automobile. And as k_flynn has repeatedly proven since last year, that "ordinary" way is inclusive of the licensed operator and it is illogical and improper for me to try to exclude it when it is an integral part of the definition. There, I fixed your post yet again! I hope you can see it more clearly now. And thank you for backing off your earlier initiation of personal abuse. You'll notice that I did not yet retaliate, hoping that you would learn and back off. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that laws against endangerment did not already serve, and instead only serves fiscal greed. Our public highways were built on our property with our money for the purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel. But, the more our public highways are made unusable by anything but the automobile, the more this LIE that Driving is a privilege makes us all prisoners of privilege behind bars lf blacktop. Read about it at: http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
proffsl wrote:
Driver Licensing serves to enhance highway safety as does registration and insurance; i apologize for my earlier LIES and FABRICATIONS and admit I was wrong and seek your forgiveness. Read about it at:http://proffsl.is.a.proven.liar/you_...er_license.php I fixed your post. By reposting things you know to be false, and have irrefutably and repeatedly been proven to be false, you seem to demonstrate that you are unable to learn from evidence and logic. Can you explain? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that laws
against endangerment did not already serve, and instead only serves fiscal greed. Our public highways were built on our property with our money for the purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel. But, the more our public highways are made unusable by anything but the automobile, the more this LIE that Driving is a privilege makes us all prisoners of privilege behind bars lf blacktop. Read about it at: http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php |
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 |