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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion
"¥ 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. > > In reality, > > Who's "reality" ? The reality WE live in. > > and in the eyes of our forfathers, > > They're dead. We all die. You will too. > >and their courts. > > They're dead too. What's your point? > >> > 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. > > 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? > >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. > > 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. > > 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. > Just drive around in circles in your own backyard, no license > required. I'm not here to take directives from you. > > 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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion
On Sep 6, 11:13 pm, proffsl > wrote:
> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote: > > > "proffsl" > wrote in message > > > Larry > wrote: > > >> proffsl > wrote: <snip> > > > 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. > <snip> Weird. You agree that the government has the right to charge for the use of the highways but not to regulate your driving on them. Logic thy name is not 'proffs' Harry K |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion
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. > > >>> In reality, >> >> Who's "reality" ? > > The reality WE live in. Who's "we", fool? > > >>> and in the eyes of our forfathers, >> >> They're dead. > > We all die. You will too. Will some fool make an inane citation to "my eyes" in 230 years? > > >>> and their courts. >> >> They're dead too. > > What's your point? See above. > > >>>>> 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. > > >>> 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? > > >>> 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? > > >>> 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. > > >>> 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? > > >> Just drive around in circles in your own backyard, no license >> required. > > I'm not here to take directives from you. Then why do you have a drivers license and license plates on you car ? > > >>> 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" ? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion
Harry K wrote:
> On Sep 6, 11:13 pm, proffsl > wrote: >> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote: >> >>> "proffsl" > wrote in message >>>> Larry > wrote: >>>>> proffsl > wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> 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. >> > > <snip> > > Weird. You agree that the government has the right to charge for the > use of the highways but not to regulate your driving on them. > > Logic thy name is not 'proffs' He's drunk ... > > Harry K |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion
Harry K > wrote:
> proffsl > wrote: > > "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote: > > > "proffsl" > wrote in message > > > > Larry > wrote: > > > >> proffsl > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > 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. > > <snip> > > Weird. You agree that the government has the right to charge for the > use of the highways but not to regulate your driving on them. > > Logic thy name is not 'proffs' To the contrary. Our public highways are built on our public Right of Ways. We all have the Right to use our public Right of Ways for personal locomotion, which is to travel at our own inclination (not be Transported at the inclination of another). Nobody can rightfully just come along and cover our public Right of Ways with highways then claim to have covered up, or done away, with our Right to use the public Right of Ways. Highways were not really needed until the use of automobiles became prolific. At the advent of automobiles, their drivers had every Right to use the unimproved public Right of Ways to travel upon as did the horse and buggy or any other means of travel at that time. Then, of course, the use of automobiles became quite prolific, and this brought about the need to build highways on our public Right of Ways. But, nobody has a Right to anything which obligates others to do or provide something. Therefore, somebody had to pay for those highways, and in all fairness, as it was the automobiles that brought about their need, it was the automobile drivers who demanded them, so it was the automobile drivers that should pay for them. And, this was accomplished through highway usage taxes being applied to automobile gasoline. But, just because the automobile drivers had special needs which they were willing to pay for in no way rightfully opens any door to convert their Right to use public Right of Ways into a permission by way of Driver Licensing. Our public highways were built on our public Rights of ways with our money for the purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our Right of Locomotion. But, in these screwed up times, the more our public highways are made unuseable by anything but the automobile, the more this LIE that driving is a privilege makes us all prisoners of permission behind the very thing which was intended to enhance and incrase the exercise of our Right of Locomotion, prisoners of permission behind bars of blacktop. No, Mr. Harry K, it is not my logic which is failing, but instead if you believe building highways on public Right of Ways somehow covers up our Right of Locomotion in the ordinary way, then it is your logic which is failing. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion
"_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> Harry K wrote: > > proffsl > wrote: > >> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote: > >>> "proffsl" > wrote in message > >>>> Larry > wrote: > >>>>> proffsl > wrote: > > > <snip> > > >>>> 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. > > > <snip> > > > Weird. You agree that the government has the right to charge for the > > use of the highways but not to regulate your driving on them. > > > Logic thy name is not 'proffs' > > He's drunk ... Ah yes. When you don't like what somebody says, but can't quite refute it, you can always take the low road and resort to personal attacks and slander. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion
"_ 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion
proffsl wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote: >> Harry K wrote: >>> proffsl > wrote: >>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote: >>>>> "proffsl" > wrote in message >>>>>> Larry > wrote: >>>>>>> proffsl > wrote: >> >>> <snip> >> >>>>>> 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. >> >>> <snip> >> >>> Weird. You agree that the government has the right to charge for the >>> use of the highways but not to regulate your driving on them. >> >>> Logic thy name is not 'proffs' >> >> He's drunk ... > > Ah yes. When you don't like what somebody says, but can't quite > refute it, you can always take the low road and resort to personal > attacks and slander. I thought you said it was "belligerent" ? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion
proffsl wrote:
> Harry K > wrote: >> proffsl > wrote: >>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote: >>>> "proffsl" > wrote in message >>>>> Larry > wrote: >>>>>> proffsl > wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>>> 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. >> >> <snip> >> >> Weird. You agree that the government has the right to charge for the >> use of the highways but not to regulate your driving on them. >> >> Logic thy name is not 'proffs' > > To the contrary. Our public highways are built on our public Right of > Ways. We all have the Right to use our public Right of Ways for > personal locomotion, which is to travel at our own inclination (not be > Transported at the inclination of another). Really? So you can fly your own aircraft any damn time and any damn place you desire, in any fashion that suits you, eh ? Or isn't the sky a "public right of way" ? > Nobody can rightfully just > come along and cover our public Right of Ways with highways then claim > to have covered up, or done away, with our Right to use the public > Right of Ways. Really? Even if that "nobody" paid for and aquired those "right of ways" via due process ? > > Highways were not really needed until the use of automobiles became > prolific. So which came first, the chicken or the prolific automobile ? > At the advent of automobiles, their drivers had every Right > to use the unimproved public Right of Ways to travel upon as did the > horse and buggy or any other means of travel at that time. > > Then, of course, the use of automobiles became quite prolific, It's called "progress" ... give it some thought when arguing arcane archaic social theories. <snip rest of drunken blather> |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion
On Sep 7, 12:47 pm, proffsl > wrote:
> Harry K > wrote: > > proffsl > wrote: > > > "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote: > > > > "proffsl" > wrote in message > > > > > Larry > wrote: > > > > >> proffsl > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > > 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. > > > <snip> > > > Weird. You agree that the government has the right to charge for the > > use of the highways but not to regulate your driving on them. > > > Logic thy name is not 'proffs' > > To the contrary. Our public highways are built on our public Right of > Ways. We all have the Right to use our public Right of Ways for > personal locomotion, which is to travel at our own inclination (not be > Transported at the inclination of another). Nobody can rightfully just > come along and cover our public Right of Ways with highways then claim > to have covered up, or done away, with our Right to use the public > Right of Ways. > > Highways were not really needed until the use of automobiles became > prolific. At the advent of automobiles, their drivers had every Right > to use the unimproved public Right of Ways to travel upon as did the > horse and buggy or any other means of travel at that time. > > Then, of course, the use of automobiles became quite prolific, and > this brought about the need to build highways on our public Right of > Ways. But, nobody has a Right to anything which obligates others to do > or provide something. Therefore, somebody had to pay for those > highways, and in all fairness, as it was the automobiles that brought > about their need, it was the automobile drivers who demanded them, so > it was the automobile drivers that should pay for them. And, this was > accomplished through highway usage taxes being applied to automobile > gasoline. > > But, just because the automobile drivers had special needs which they > were willing to pay for in no way rightfully opens any door to convert > their Right to use public Right of Ways into a permission by way of > Driver Licensing. > > Our public highways were built on our public Rights of ways with our > money for the purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our > Right of Locomotion. But, in these screwed up times, the more our > public highways are made unuseable by anything but the automobile, the > more this LIE that driving is a privilege makes us all prisoners of > permission behind the very thing which was intended to enhance and > incrase the exercise of our Right of Locomotion, prisoners of > permission behind bars of blacktop. > > No, Mr. Harry K, it is not my logic which is failing, but instead if > you believe building highways on public Right of Ways somehow covers > up our Right of Locomotion in the ordinary way, then it is your logic > which is failing.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - A whole bunch of blather about "public right of ways" that never existed in most of the US. Out here, they want a new highway, they have to purchase the land to build it on. It has been pointed out to you before that no-one and no agency prohibits you from using the highways. If you want to 'drive a car' on them, then you are regulated as is required for the public good. After all, with no regulations, there would be chaos out there. One of the needed regulations is ensuring that anyone driving, is competent to do so (they to a **** poor job of that though) which is done by requiring a license. That license requires on to be of a certain age and has a minimum (very) knowledge of the rules and laws governing movement. Of course I realise that talking to you is like talking to a stone wall although if done enough, the stone wall just might, one day, show a penetration. Harry K |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driver with NO ARMS & ONE LEG says He's thru driving ( afteranother arrest) | The Man Behind The Curtain | Driving | 2 | August 3rd 07 03:36 AM |
Teen driver who killed herself and 4 others was ILLEGALLY DRIVING | Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS[_1_] | Driving | 31 | July 3rd 07 09:21 AM |
Drunk driving SUV owner shoots CROSSBOW at other driver | Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS[_1_] | Driving | 30 | October 22nd 06 11:10 PM |
The Right of Locomotion | proffsl | Driving | 57 | August 16th 05 01:52 AM |
The Right of Locomotion | proffsl | Driving | 0 | July 13th 05 04:15 AM |