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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is imperative for highway safety
proffsl wrote: - wrote: proffsl wrote: But, then they go on to provide the very grounds on which to invalidate such police powers: "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 -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf Which brings us back to the subject of this thread, that being "Driver Licensing is not about highway safety", such that this Police Power is arbitrary and unreasonable. I retitled it so that it is truthful. Why do you continue to behave like a child? Excuse me? My witty alterations are both humorous AND corrective of your mistakes. It's the best in sarcasm and wit. And much more entertaining than your regurgitated lies and twisting of data. I retitled the thread so that readers will not be misled by your false claims. You are being childish to revert back to your disproven, false claims. Driver licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment did not already serve. False. Society is not required to wait upon the day you run over my child to start ensuring public safety. No such requirement is made. Wrong. You just made it. The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. False. Explain to us how you stop, arrest and charge a driver as his bumper is a hair's breadth from my toddler. And by the way, you just contradicted yourself yet again. According to you, we cannot arrest him until AFTER he hits my kid, if before that he's done nothing else wrong. So NOW you advocate arresting him in the NANOSECOND before his speeding car, having just violated a red light, plows into my baby. That is completely unsupportable nonsense and even you should see that now. PLUS.... Since you have done away with licensing and registration as part of your illogical campaign - after all, they have nothing to do with enforcing public safety! - now that this driver has killed my kid and he careens off into the sunset, no witness can get a license plate number. He's scot-free. Will never be held accountable. After all, what incentive is there in a world of no licenses and no plates for people who do bad things to stop and be held accountable? NONE. So in your world, as we went through last year, people get away with murder and this is all right with you as long as you never had to go down to DMV and test for your license. You fail to see the implications of your own illogical position. I hope this helps open your eyes to the FACT that licensing and registration are not only allowed, but are a very important part of the system of automobile usage. Driver licensing only presumes to determine if one CAN drive safely. Bingo! Thank you for establishing that it is not arbitrary. But, it is arbitrary, as it is FALSELY presumed. Incorrectamundo! It is not falsely presumed. And it is most assuredly, even as you admit, not arbitrary at all. It is integral to the system, and it applies across the board, the very opposite of arbitrary. Driver Licensing NEVER WAS about highway safety. And, still IS NOT about highway safety. False. It always has been and still is. I've added more lies and disinformation to my page at: http://proffsl.0mb.com/proffsl_is_a _misguided_troll.stp http://proffsl.0mb.com/k_flynn_has_m...or_with_me.aok But, virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive safely. Are you back to advocating that infants, dogs and amoebas be allowed to drive up until the point where they actually have an accident? I'm looking. I see no such advocation. Why, on top of behaving like a child, do you constantly lie? I have never lied, not even once, and you have been completely impotent in following up with any evidence that anything I ever said was even wrong, let alone a purposeful lie, such as your complete fabrication of a court case citation last year... Remember THAT one? Your advocacy for the rights of amoeba to drive was the logical result of your position that up and until the moment that any individual driver (not a class, but a discreet individual) causes harm, there can be no constitutional justification to deny them. So your position results in dogs and cats and toddlers and gnats and amoeba being permitted to drive until the inevitable results in each and every case. You really do have to live with the consequences of your positions, ya know. Virtually everybody who applies for a driver license eventually obtains one. The question isn't if they CAN drive safely, but rather if they WILL drive safely. And that's where the system of licensing, revocation, etc all fit in. They are essential cogs in the wheels of public welfare and safety, And, here you pretend as if Due Process of Law was not already in place to revoke any of our Rights once we have demonstrated we will not exercise them without endangering others. Not at all. Due process is present from start to finish. How could you miss that? I can't charge you with "endangerment" if I don't know who you are. Hog Wash! Even if someone didn't know who they them self were, and neither did anybody else, and they took a baseball bat and began to swing it so near your head as to constitute endangerment, you can still charge their criminal ass with endangerment, and they can be prosecuted for such by Due Process of Law in our courts. Uh.... Earth to proffsl.... You cannot charge someone you don't know. They've left the scene after bashing your brains... oh, excuse me... your head in with that baseball bat. Who's there to charge with anything? The red light runner who hit my kid and drove off... whom do we charge? Cogitate over the pure impossibility of your system of "injustice." The vast majority of highway accidents are due to WILLFUL acts of negligence. False. You are flat out wrong. Go do yourself a Google search on "Primary Cause of Automobile Accidents", and educate yourself. Uh, we already went over this in 2006's version of this losing argument of yours. Do not presume to give me directives. Instead, read YOUR OWN CITE and discover that what I said is in fact unassailable truth about your misuse and faulty interpretation of that study. Educate yourself, then come back and you will likely want to be apologizing to me! I've added additional misinformation and erroneous arguments to my page at: http://proffsl.0mb.com/I_have_no_clue.php http://proffsl.0mb.com/driving.php Go read it, and be dumbed down by my rampant illogic and fabrications. There. I fixed your links again. Thank me later! |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:33:38 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote: The same might be sad of you. You repeatedly roll out this nonsense about driver licensing having nothing to do with road safety, ignore all the evidence and logical argument and misinterpret your own cites, and then you just go own arguing the same crap over and over as if it were true. Grow up and get a life. Maybe one day you will pass your driver exam. He'll keep doing it while you and others respond. He's both a twit and a troll. Cheers, Alan, Australia -- http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Slovenia http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/ latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is ESSENTIAL for highway safety
Alan S wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:33:38 -0400, Dave Smith wrote: The same might be sad of you. You repeatedly roll out this nonsense about driver licensing having nothing to do with road safety, ignore all the evidence and logical argument and misinterpret your own cites, and then you just go own arguing the same crap over and over as if it were true. Grow up and get a life. Maybe one day you will pass your driver exam. He'll keep doing it while you and others respond. He's both a twit and a troll. Cheers, Alan, Australia Could you let a guy have some fun shooting ducks in a barrel here? KF the thread if it bothers you. I enjoy correcting his egregious errors. It's light entertainment for me. Fact is, he's spamming other ngs with the same crapola, so he'd be doing it with or without the replies. It's just that he makes it so easy to disprove his statements, |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote: Why do you continue to behave like a child? The same might be sad of you. I see you'd rather take part in an Ad Hominem instead of addressing the issue. Yep, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Typical behavior by those who can not defend their position. I'm sure it might. Unfounded things are said all the time. But then, I'm not the one disrupting this thread by constantly changing the Subject and changing the content of the Posts, then saying "I fixed your post again". You repeatedly roll out this nonsense about driver licensing having nothing to do with road safety, Licensing does have nothing to do with highway safety. ignore all the evidence and logical argument I could say the same about you. You are the one who is now ignoring the content of what I am saying, but instead attacking me personally. and misinterpret your own cites, I provided a cite where the courts did in fact recognize our Right to Drive and that it was Constitutionally protected, but then turned around and choose to exercise a police power against it on the pretense that it was for public safety. 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. I provided a cite that states that 98% of all accidents are caused by willful acts of negligence. The cite went on to point out that the drivers would always try to blame the accident on other factors, but that when all things were taken into consideration, the fault always lay with the driver. I misrepresented none of these cites, and I suspect you are falsely claiming I did in the hope that others won't bother to read them for themselves. and then you just go own arguing the same crap over and over as if it were true. What I am saying IS TRUE, but all you can do in opposition to this message of truth I bring to you is to attack the messenger. Grow up and get a life. Now you're the one behaving like a child. Maybe one day you will pass your driver exam. Now you're practicing a form of libel, where you are making veiled and foundless accusations against my driving knowledge and skills. This is an Ad Hominem attack, and has no place in a logical debate. You said that you use to give driver licensing exams. One does wonder why you are so offensive toward my message. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
- wrote:
proffsl wrote: The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. False. So, you're saying that if somebody is driving in a dangerous fashon, there is nothing that can be done about it? Driver Licensing NEVER WAS about highway safety. And, still IS NOT about highway safety. False. It always has been and still is. In fact, originally, this excuse was not even used for the enactment of this police power. The average number of years between a state initiating the requirement for a Driver License and the year when that state actually began the practice of Driver License examinations is 8.34 years. Astonshingly, the first state to require Driver Licensing was Missouri in 1903 and it is also the last state to require an examination in 1952. (source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl230.pdf ) I can't charge you with "endangerment" if I don't know who you are. Hog Wash! Even if someone didn't know who they them self were, and neither did anybody else, and they took a baseball bat and began to swing it so near your head as to constitute endangerment, you can still charge their criminal ass with endangerment, and they can be prosecuted for such by Due Process of Law in our courts. Uh.... Earth to proffsl.... You cannot charge someone you don't know. Hog wash. John Does are arrested all the time. They commit a crime, they carry no ID, they refuse to identify themself, they have no record, but still, they are arrested, even charged in the courts, and serve their sentence. And, all the time, nobody knows "who they are", other than the fact that they are the one who committed a crime. The red light runner who hit my kid and drove off... whom do we charge? The one where there were no witnesses? Cogitate over the pure impossibility of your system of "injustice." Cogitate over the pure bull**** of your system of "injustice". According to you, you can't arrest someone for a crime unless they have a Driver License. Makes one wonder how they ever managed to arrest criminals before 1903. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Alan S wrote:
Dave Smith The same might be sad of you. You repeatedly roll out this nonsense about driver licensing having nothing to do with road safety, ignore all the evidence and logical argument and misinterpret your own cites, and then you just go own arguing the same crap over and over as if it were true. Grow up and get a life. Maybe one day you will pass your driver exam. He'll keep doing it while you and others respond. He's both a twit and a troll. I was thinking just the same thing of you. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote: proffsl wrote: Why do you continue to behave like a child? The same might be sad of you. I see you'd rather take part in an Ad Hominem instead of addressing the issue. Yep, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Typical behavior by those who can not defend their position. Yes. That was an Ad Hominem, and what a moron you are to use whine about that, considering that I was responding to your comment about another poster's childishness....an ad Hominem. I'm sure it might. Unfounded things are said all the time. But then, I'm not the one disrupting this thread by constantly changing the Subject and changing the content of the Posts, then saying "I fixed your post again". You repeatedly roll out this nonsense about driver licensing having nothing to do with road safety, Licensing does have nothing to do with highway safety. ignore all the evidence and logical argument I could say the same about you. You are the one who is now ignoring the content of what I am saying, but instead attacking me personally. I did not ignore the context of what you said. I dismissed it as nonsense. You posted cites that did bnot support your claims. What I am saying IS TRUE, but all you can do in opposition to this message of truth I bring to you is to attack the messenger. Grow up and get a life. Now you're the one behaving like a child. Now now. That is an Ad Hominem. Maybe one day you will pass your driver exam. Now you're practicing a form of libel, where you are making veiled and foundless accusations against my driving knowledge and skills. This is an Ad Hominem attack, and has no place in a logical debate. Libel??? Because I suggested that you might one day pass a driver examination? LMAO You said that you use to give driver licensing exams. One does wonder why you are so offensive toward my message. I only did it for a few weeks. It was a horrible way to make a living. Every 20 minutes you have to get into a car and go for a ride with someone who probably doesn't know how to drive. I spent close to 20 years working in commercial vehcile enforcement and used to catch a lot of people without driver licences. They were fairly easy to catch. It was usually obvious from watching them drive that they did not know how. I also got a lot of drivers under suspension. They were also easy to spot. They drove as if there wer no rules. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing ensures highway safety
On Sep 28, 6:20 am, proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote: proffsl wrote: Why do you continue to behave like a child? The same might be sad of you. I see you'd rather take part in an Ad Hominem... Which, we should state here in case you tend to forget again who it was who begins the insulting behavior, was begun by YOU. ... instead of addressing the issue. Which is your persistent falsehoods in the face of being corrected. Yep, if you don't like the message... .... which is full of knowingly stated falsehoods... ... , attack the messenger. .... who appears to be lying on purpose. Typical behavior by those who can not defend their position. Our position has not only been fully defended, it is unassailably true. Yours on the other hand has been shown repeatedly to be false, illogical and based on continual misreadings, misinterpretations and outright fabrications of actual evidence. It is you who is trying to defend that which has been proven false. I'm sure it might. Unfounded things are said all the time. You are living proof of hat whenever you hit "send" and post an entire raft of unfounded things, which we have fully exposed as false. But then, I'm not the one disrupting this thread by constantly changing the Subject and changing the content of the Posts, then saying "I fixed your post again". So what? What does that have to do with who is right and who is wrong? You have been proven wrong not only by *preponderance* of the facts and evidence, but by the *totality* of them. Now get this, and understand it well so you don't keep making the same mistake: I am not "disrupting" the thread by replying. This is *usenet* open to anyone. I am *participating* in the sure and swift dismantling of your completely meritless positions. If I do it with a bit of humor and flair, good because then people might still read it well beyond the point where you've been shown to be completely superfluous to cogent discussion. You repeatedly roll out this nonsense about driver licensing having nothing to do with road safety, Licensing does have nothing to do with highway safety. Wrong. We have proven otherwise. ignore all the evidence and logical argument I could say the same about you. Sure, but as usual, you would be stating things that are false. You are the one who is now ignoring the content of what I am saying, but instead attacking me personally. And, who started it??? and misinterpret your own cites, I provided a cite where the courts did in fact recognize our Right to Drive and that it was Constitutionally protected, but then turned around and choose to exercise a police power against it on the pretense that it was for public safety. Which, of course, proves you wrong, which completely justifies saying that you misinterpreted your own cites. The ruling well-established the justification for licensing. On the other hand, for you to cite it as a reason licensing is *not* proper is *completely* without merit since the ruling *upheld* licensing. 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/dl23.pdf) This alone proves that driver licensing wasn't initiated for any purpose of highway safety. No it doesn't. Logically, that doesn't follow at all. Testing isn't the only way that licensing could be a part of a system of enforcing road safety. It doesn't establish your point at all. I provided a cite that states that 98% of all accidents are caused by willful acts of negligence. And we pointed out that you were WRONG because the cite did NOT say that. And in your petulance, you keep reciting your same misinterpretation *even after being corrected.* The cite went on to point out that the drivers would always try to blame the accident on other factors, but that when all things were taken into consideration, the fault always lay with the driver. Wrong. I misrepresented none of these cites... Yes you did as I just pointed out again. , and I suspect you are falsely claiming I did in the hope that others won't bother to read them for themselves. chuckle) It appears that YOU are the one who didn't bother to read them! Bwahahaaahaaa! Remember the "cite" you gave us when you had the completely fabricated quote in the court case? Your own cite contained the exchange that exposed the fraud yet you still posted it!! Even you have to admit that this was funny. and then you just go own arguing the same crap over and over as if it were true. What I am saying IS TRUE... .... except for all the false parts, which is pretty much the entirety. , but all you can do in opposition to this message of truth I bring to you is to attack the messenger. False. We have completely gone after the content and it has been thoroughly and irretrievably proven wrong. Grow up and get a life. Now you're the one behaving like a child. Wrong. When you repost things that have already been exposed as false, THAT is the childish behavior. Maybe one day you will pass your driver exam. Now you're practicing a form of libel,... Libel? He is expressing a good wish for you, that you succeed at something. Your reaction is quite curious. ... where you are making veiled and foundless accusations against my driving knowledge and skills. This is an Ad Hominem attack, and has no place in a logical debate. What would you know about logical debate other than reading my thorough deconstructions of your posts? You said that you use to give driver licensing exams. One does wonder why you are so offensive toward my message. Probably because everything you say is false. Also, I fixed the subject line. Try not to be so childish as to change it back to a lie. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is ESSENTIAL for highway safety
On Sep 28, 6:45 am, proffsl wrote:
- wrote: proffsl wrote: The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. False. So, you're saying that if somebody is driving in a dangerous fashon, there is nothing that can be done about it? Do you know how to read? Where do you make the 180-degree leap from my saying it is false when you claim that at the precise moment anyone shows *any behavior* that endangers others, that at *that very moment* they can be stopped BEFORE they cause actual harm? Did you not read what I said? How do you make the magic illogical leap to thinking that I would say that nothing can ever be done about behavior that is endangering? Holy cow, no wonder we can't get through to you with truth and logic. You appear to be impervious to true reason. Maybe you can explain why that might not be so, but otherwise, I gotta run with it. Here, let me spell it out for you: Your claim seems to entail that every single member of society will have his/her very own personal police officer next to them at all moments of their lives. Knowing how you feel about police officers - you have stated a desire to murder them so that you can continue taking drugs - I am surprised you would advocate having constant police presence in each of our lives. So, if that's NOT the case, explain to me how at the very moment that a driver speeds through a light that has just turned red and his bumper is a half-inch from my toddler's back at 45 mph - tell me how your magic system immediately stops that two-ton piece of metal and arrests this guy for endangerment before he hits and kills my child? Take your time answering, because I know it will require your maximum twisting, wriggling, misinterpretations and possibly even a resumption of your prior tendency to fabricate. Just so we're clear, for one to say that there are occasions when we will not be able to stop people who begin exhibiting dangerous behavior from actually causing harm, does NOT mean that there is never anything that can be done in other instances. Wow. And *you're* the one who complains about other people's lack of cogent discussion??? Driver Licensing NEVER WAS about highway safety. And, still IS NOT about highway safety. False. It always has been and still is. In fact, originally, this excuse was not even used for the enactment of this police power. The average number of years between a state initiating the requirement for a Driver License and the year when that state actually began the practice of Driver License examinations is 8.34 years. That does not establish your point at all. Astonshingly, the first state to require Driver Licensing was Missouri in 1903 and it is also the last state to require an examination in 1952. (source:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl23.pdf ) As I said, that does not establish your point at all. Testing is not the only manner in which licensing can be a tool in ensuring public welfare and safety on the roads. I can't charge you with "endangerment" if I don't know who you are. Hog Wash! Even if someone didn't know who they them self were, and neither did anybody else, and they took a baseball bat and began to swing it so near your head as to constitute endangerment, you can still charge their criminal ass with endangerment, and they can be prosecuted for such by Due Process of Law in our courts. Uh.... Earth to proffsl.... You cannot charge someone you don't know. Hog wash. Bwahaahaaaaa!!! This oughtta be good! DO eb so good as to tell us who is up in the defendant's chair at the trial then!! Bwahahaaaaa! You are now advocating dragging people off the street and having them substitute for the real perpetrator?? John Does are arrested all the time. Uh, earth to proffsl again.... The person HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED. You don't know who he is... he has left the friggin' scene and you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. You don't know WHO TO ARREST. Unless I was right and you actually ARE advocating a society in which every person has their own personal cop assigned to follow them at all times. They commit a crime, they carry no ID, they refuse to identify themself, they have no record, but still, they are arrested, even charged in the courts, and serve their sentence. And, all the time, nobody knows "who they are", other than the fact that they are the one who committed a crime. How dense can you possibly be? Because you have done away with licensing and registration... THE PERP IS GONE. You HAVE NOT ARRESTED ANYONE. They GOT AWAY!! And they fled likely because with no plates, their incentive is to FLEE THE SCENE. Wow. Holy cow. DO you GET IT now? The red light runner who hit my kid and drove off... whom do we charge? The one where there were no witnesses? No, there are 100 witnesses. But the perp still drove off. You STILL don't know who he is. Yikes. Can someone help proffsl here to see what is being said??? Cogitate over the pure impossibility of your system of "injustice." Cogitate over the pure bull**** of your system of "injustice". You have to be kidding. I advocate a system where perpetrators of crimes have less chance of getting away scot-free; YOU advocate a system where people can escape their responsibility for causing mayhem and murder - and you call MY system unjust? I trust your foolishness has been adequately exposed so that even you can grasp this? According to you, you can't arrest someone for a crime unless they have a Driver License. You HAVE to be kidding, right? No one can possibly be as consistently dense and illogical as your replies are indicating. No where did I say you can't arrest someone without a license. If for some reason the perp who hit my kid DOES stop to render aid and to wait to be held accountable, despite that fact that in Proffsland he could have escaped scot-free since he has no plates on his car and no one could say who he was, THEN he could be arrested. But in society as YOU have fashioned it, why would he? Makes one wonder how they ever managed to arrest criminals before 1903. You are the only one who would wonder over your own false dilemma. Everyone else gets the point. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing needed for highway safety
On Sep 28, 6:46 am, proffsl wrote:
Alan S wrote: Dave Smith The same might be sad of you. You repeatedly roll out this nonsense about driver licensing having nothing to do with road safety, ignore all the evidence and logical argument and misinterpret your own cites, and then you just go own arguing the same crap over and over as if it were true. Grow up and get a life. Maybe one day you will pass your driver exam. He'll keep doing it while you and others respond. He's both a twit and a troll. I was thinking just the same thing of you. Difference is, as usual, he is right and you are wrong. |
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 |