Driver Licensing not about highway safety

wrote:
proffsl wrote:

At least you have accepted the fact their not linked by nature, and
only by a police power. Good for you!

I never said otherwise.

As if you agree.


So, you agree that Licensing is not a natural part of our Right to
operate a motor vehicle on our public highways, but instead a part
of a police power circumventing this Right.

That's a completely illogical conclusion on your part,

As if you disagree.

wrote:
proffsl wrote:

At least you have accepted the fact their not linked by nature, and
only by a police power. Good for you!

I never said otherwise.

As if you agree.


So, you agree that Licensing is not a natural part of our Right to
operate a motor vehicle on our public highways, but instead a part
of a police power circumventing this Right.

That's a completely illogical conclusion on your part,

As if you disagree.

"Alohacyberian" wrote:

Operation of motor vehicles isn't a "right".

The operation of a motor vehicle on public highways is a Right, that
is being circumvented by a police power requiring Licensing.

Police powers may not be arbitrary or unreasonable.

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

The police power requiring licenses is unreasonable.

proffsl wrote:

al part of our Right to
operate a motor vehicle on our public highways, but instead a part
of a police power circumventing this Right.

That's a completely illogical conclusion on your part,

As if you disagree.


How about going to someone who can provide a professional opinion.
And I don't mean a lawyer.

"Alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"proffsl" wrote in message
ps.com...
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
live, have. You are pathetic.

I may be pathetic, but, I have a driver license. You don't.

What makes you so damn pathetic is that after you have been so
thoroughly proven wrong in regards to your ignorance of our Right to
operate motor vehicles on our public highways

Operation of motor vehicles isn't a "right". You need a new dictionary, a
new lawyer, a new mentor, a new tin-foil hat or new medication. 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/

Well, well, well...Keith is back after one day under that rock of his. Six
posts here today, none addressing my question to him:

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

as he continues the KM2 - ignoring the question entirely. At least he is
not doing the Keith Martin of non sequiturs, red herrings, and ad hominems
(as he does here as per proffsl's post), the Alvin Toda of crawling back
under that rock as he did yesterday, or that six year old kid's taunt of
his: "Yes or no. KM." But he still continues to duck my question.

Quack, quack!

Alan S wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:17:55 -0700, wrote:

Because a police power may not be
drivel snipped

Amazing! You've slipped out of my killfile so you must have
kept this monomania up for more than thirty days!

No. If you'd looked, you'd see he changed his posting account to
Yahoo.

Congratulations on the troll, as I know you've managed to
suck people in who have continued to respond to your weird
crap.

You are among them.

You have my award for troll of the month.

Now back you go for another thirty days...

Unless he changes his account again.

proffsl wrote:
"Alohacyberian" wrote:

Operation of motor vehicles isn't a "right".

The operation of a motor vehicle on public highways is a Right, that
is being circumvented by a police power requiring Licensing.

No it is not being circumvented at all. They are conjoined and work
hand in glove. This isn't circumvention and your illogical attempt to
call it that is not factual, just polemical.

Police powers may not be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Well, they can be! I've seen that happen. AT least in this case, they
are not. That line of questioning was considered, rejected and settled
many many decades ago at the highest court in the land.

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

Wrong.

The police power requiring licenses is unreasonable.

False

proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:

At least you have accepted the fact their not linked by nature, and
only by a police power. Good for you!

I never said otherwise.

As if you agree.

Of course I agree. It is true, and I never said otherwise. We have
*chosen* to link them, as a lawful society, under our Constitution.
They could be unlinked by some legislature somewhere, fine by me. But
the situation is that we the people have approved of linking them in
order to fulfill the constitutional right to public safety and general
welfare.

That was almost *too* easy, that you may finally understand you've
been arguing with your own straw men for the last 19 months.

So, you agree that Licensing is not a natural part of our Right to
operate a motor vehicle on our public highways, but instead a part
of a police power circumventing this Right.

That's a completely illogical conclusion on your part,

As if you disagree.

Well, of course, as would all sound minds. Licensing is nor
circumvention of the right to travel by way of motor vehicle. It is a
way of enhancing it and making it safer that your system, which if I
recall would allow infants and casts to drive. There are more
possibilities than your false dilemma of either "naturally linked" or
"circumvention." Look into it, why don't you.

Once again your stoned out brain forgot to remind you to change the
subject ine back tor eflect your completely failed and disproven
claims, so you have to immeidatley repost the falsehoods. This is
getting pathetic.

proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:

At least you have accepted the fact their not linked by nature, and
only by a police power. Good for you!

I never said otherwise.

As if you agree.

Of course I agree. It is true, and I never said otherwise. We have
*chosen* to link them, as a lawful society, under our Constitution.
They could be unlinked by some legislature somewhere, fine by me. But
the situation is that we the people have approved of linking them in
order to fulfill the constitutional right to public safety and general
welfare.

That was almost *too* easy, that you may finally understand you've
been arguing with your own straw men for the last 19 months.

So, you agree that Licensing is not a natural part of our Right to
operate a motor vehicle on our public highways, but instead a part
of a police power circumventing this Right.

That's a completely illogical conclusion on your part,

As if you disagree.

Well, of course, as would all sound minds. Licensing is nor
circumvention of the right to travel by way of motor vehicle. It is a
way of enhancing it and making it safer that your system, which if I
recall would allow infants and casts to drive. There are more
possibilities than your false dilemma of either "naturally linked" or
"circumvention." Look into it, why don't you.

And here, you must have dropped your roach clip on the Enter button
twice, For the record, you're still wrong even when you post duplicate
lies three times in a row.

proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:

At least you have accepted the fact their not linked by nature, and
only by a police power. Good for you!

I never said otherwise.

As if you agree.

Of course I agree. It is true, and I never said otherwise. We have
*chosen* to link them, as a lawful society, under our Constitution.
They could be unlinked by some legislature somewhere, fine by me. But
the situation is that we the people have approved of linking them in
order to fulfill the constitutional right to public safety and general
welfare.

That was almost *too* easy, that you may finally understand you've
been arguing with your own straw men for the last 19 months.

So, you agree that Licensing is not a natural part of our Right to
operate a motor vehicle on our public highways, but instead a part
of a police power circumventing this Right.

That's a completely illogical conclusion on your part,

As if you disagree.

Well, of course, as would all sound minds. Licensing is nor
circumvention of the right to travel by way of motor vehicle. It is a
way of enhancing it and making it safer that your system, which if I
recall would allow infants and casts to drive. There are more
possibilities than your false dilemma of either "naturally linked" or
"circumvention." Look into it, why don't you.