A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Driver Licensing not about highway safety



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old September 28th, 2007, 01:07 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
-
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default 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  
Old September 28th, 2007, 01:08 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Alan S[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,163
Default 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  
Old September 28th, 2007, 01:14 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
-
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default 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  
Old September 28th, 2007, 01:20 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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  
Old September 28th, 2007, 01:45 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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  
Old September 28th, 2007, 01:46 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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  
Old September 28th, 2007, 02:39 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Dave Smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default 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  
Old September 28th, 2007, 03:17 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
-
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default 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  
Old September 28th, 2007, 03:41 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
-
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default 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  
Old September 28th, 2007, 03:42 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
-
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.