"_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
> >> "proffsl" > wrote in message
> >>> Larry > wrote:
> >>>> proffsl > wrote:
>
> >>>>> You can not be rightfully required to obtain a Driver License
> >>>>> before Driving, as Driving is a part of your Right of Locomotion.
>
> >>>> There is no such thing as a "right of locomotion."
>
> >>> Sure there is.
>
> >> Where?
>
> > Under your nose.
>
> Nope, not there.

Your inability, or unwillingness, to see the truth does not make it go
away.


> >>>>> Read why
> >>>>> he
>
> >>>>>http://proffsl.110mb.com/locomotion.php
>
> >>>>>http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php
>
> >>>>>http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
>
> >>>> So you think there's a right to drive a car, but not a right to
> >>>> be a passenger in one? Interesting. Bizarre, but interesting.
>
> >>> So, if I had a Right to be a passenger,
>
> >> You don't.
>
> > You don't follow well, do you. Larry is the one who thinks we have a
> > Right to be passengers, to be Transported. No such Right exists.
>
> Nor does any Right to Locomotion.

Right OF Locomotion. NOT Right TO Locomotion. A Right TO Locomotion
implies that others must provide it for you. A Right OF Locomotion
only implies that others may not deny you of it.


> >>> then I would have the Right to obligate you, or anyone else,
> >>> to Transport me as a passenger to anywhere my little heart
> >>> might desire.
>
> >> You're drunk again, loser.
>
> > Baseless accusations. Besides, Larry is the one who thinks we have
> > the Right to be Transported. Not me. Are you too drunk to follow the
> > thread?
>
> Are you too drunk to comprehend the analogy?

Considering that you are quite unable to follow the discussion with
any clarity, I really ought to be the one asking you that question.


> >>> Bizarre, but interesting.
>
> >>> No, nobody can have an Inherent Right to anything that would
> >>> obligate any othes to provide for them.
>
> >> You mean like roadways, streets, highways, design, contruxtion and
> >> maintence of same?
>
> > Can you point out where I made any claim we have an Inherent Right to
> > roadways, streets, highways, or their design, construction and
> > maintenance? I doubt it, cause I never did.
>
> > That is an Acquired Right which we acquire when paying highway usage
> > taxes.
>
> What "highway usage tax" are you referring to?

The one's applied to the purchase of automobile gasoline, and
rightfully so as it was the automobiles which brought about the need
to build highways on our public Right of Ways.


> >>> That would violate the very principle
> >>> of Inherent Rights.
>
> >> Where is that a legal principle ?
>
> > The U.S. Supreme Court is not the end all to everything.
>
> In the U$ Judicial system it is.

No, not even there. There are some truths which even they can not bar
their doors strong enough to keep out, and which will come bursting in
on them, regardless how much they would deny it.


> >>> It is not Inherent in one's creation that there
> >>> are going to be others to provide for them.
>
> >> So don't use the roadways, streets and highways that other's
> >> provide for you, jackass.
>
> > You are a beligerant fool. In your zest to be beligerant, you
> > blindly stumble over the truth and never see it.
>
> You use words that you fail to comprehend, don't you?

You read words that you fail to comprehend, and instead of trying, you
merely resort to personal attacks against those who wrote the words.


> >>> If you're interested in the true nature of Inherent Rights, not the
> >>> twisted one I'm sure you think you understand, then you can
> >>> read on that at:
>
> >>>http://proffsl.110mb.com/inherent_rights.php
>
> >> In what country do such Inherent Rights have protection under law?
>
> > Inherent Rights are not endowed by countrys.
>
> Than what "endows" "inherent rights" ?

Our creation as conscious beings.

And, in your own style, considering the quantities of alcohol which
you must consume, being conscious probably isn't a familiar condition
to you.