You have the Right to Drive

On Mar 17, 1:37*pm, N8N > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:46*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 6:19 pm, (Brent P)
> > wrote:
>
> > > In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > > >Brent P wrote:
> > > >>Ed wrote:
> > > >>>Yes, yes - a vast, secret conspiracy to make Brent move to Montana
> > > >>>with his guns and live off-grid until the Apocalypse arrives. *Aaack -
> > > >>>my hat - the foil is ripped! *I'm getting the signals now!
>
> > > >> Bogglesome. Can't even have a decent discussion with you.
> > > >Actually, tell me more about this moving to Montana and living off-grid
> > > >thing. *Newsletter, subscribe, etc.
> > > >You can bet that if I ever become independently wealthy I'm probably
> > > >going to do something very similar to the above...
>
> > >
>
> > > I don't really have much of a clue about it. I've been in 'the city'
> > > most of my life although I have picked up a fair amount from friends who
> > > grew up elsewhere.
>
> > If you haven't lived outside the city, or even an urbanized area, then
> > you have no clue. *Seriously.
>
> > Growing up on a farm teaches you a lot of things.
>
> > It teaches you a bunch about economics and commodities. *It teaches
> > you a ton about tax law and property law. *It teaches you how to get
> > along with your neighbor, even if you don't want to.
>
> > What's more, rural folks seem so much more relaxed and genuine than
> > city folks.
>
> I'm with you up to here.
>
> >*And, when it comes to self-governing, rural folks seem to
> > know that their neighbors know everything about them, so they'd better
> > do the job on the straight-and-narrow. *If you've never experienced
> > any sort of gov. outside of Cook Co., then you have absolutely no clue
> > about how most of America runs itself. *Yeah, so back-scratching goes
> > on - but not like in your neck of the woods. *Cook Co. is synonymous
> > with crooked politics. *Not everywhere is like that.
>
> > I can see easily how you and Matthew might view all gov. as crooked.
> > Philly ain't any group of saints. *But that doesn't imply that
> > EVERYWHERE is like that. *Or even resembles that. *Your myopia affects
> > your judgment - obviously. *Quick, get out of IL. *Go somewhere else..
> > Anywhere else. You'll see that what I say is true.
>
> > E.P.
>
> I disagree. *More often than not, any politician at higher than the
> very local level has at least a little "what's in it for me" or "what
> can I get for my constituents, never mind if it's at the expense of
> what's good for the country or society as a whole" in them at best,
> and are flat out crooked at worst.

1.) Our representatives are sent to represent *us*. The idea that
somehow "our guy" should take care of us, but the "other guy" should
do what's right "for the country" is some weird thinking. If you want
something other than representative democracy, you're going to have to
change the Constitution. A lot.

2.) Having known some state represntatives and senators (not
national), they are decent folks who do a job that most folks don't
want to do, or wouldn't want to, even if it paid 10x what it does
nominally.

So the idea that they are all "crooked", is just plain wrong. None of
them are going to do for "society as a whole" over what is best for
their constituents - because their job is to represent us. If you
want them to do what's right at the expense of their constituents,
then you're going to have to find a bus to that place everyone wants
to go, but nobody can actually find - Utopia.

E.P.

On Mar 21, 11:41*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Mar 17, 1:37*pm, N8N > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 9:46*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 6:19 pm, (Brent P)
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > > > >Brent P wrote:
> > > > >>Ed wrote:
> > > > >>>Yes, yes - a vast, secret conspiracy to make Brent move to Montana
> > > > >>>with his guns and live off-grid until the Apocalypse arrives. *Aaack -
> > > > >>>my hat - the foil is ripped! *I'm getting the signals now!
>
> > > > >> Bogglesome. Can't even have a decent discussion with you.
> > > > >Actually, tell me more about this moving to Montana and living off-grid
> > > > >thing. *Newsletter, subscribe, etc.
> > > > >You can bet that if I ever become independently wealthy I'm probably
> > > > >going to do something very similar to the above...
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I don't really have much of a clue about it. I've been in 'the city'
> > > > most of my life although I have picked up a fair amount from friends who
> > > > grew up elsewhere.
>
> > > If you haven't lived outside the city, or even an urbanized area, then
> > > you have no clue. *Seriously.
>
> > > Growing up on a farm teaches you a lot of things.
>
> > > It teaches you a bunch about economics and commodities. *It teaches
> > > you a ton about tax law and property law. *It teaches you how to get
> > > along with your neighbor, even if you don't want to.
>
> > > What's more, rural folks seem so much more relaxed and genuine than
> > > city folks.
>
> > I'm with you up to here.
>
> > >*And, when it comes to self-governing, rural folks seem to
> > > know that their neighbors know everything about them, so they'd better
> > > do the job on the straight-and-narrow. *If you've never experienced
> > > any sort of gov. outside of Cook Co., then you have absolutely no clue
> > > about how most of America runs itself. *Yeah, so back-scratching goes
> > > on - but not like in your neck of the woods. *Cook Co. is synonymous
> > > with crooked politics. *Not everywhere is like that.
>
> > > I can see easily how you and Matthew might view all gov. as crooked.
> > > Philly ain't any group of saints. *But that doesn't imply that
> > > EVERYWHERE is like that. *Or even resembles that. *Your myopia affects
> > > your judgment - obviously. *Quick, get out of IL. *Go somewhere else.
> > > Anywhere else. You'll see that what I say is true.
>
> > > E.P.
>
> > I disagree. *More often than not, any politician at higher than the
> > very local level has at least a little "what's in it for me" or "what
> > can I get for my constituents, never mind if it's at the expense of
> > what's good for the country or society as a whole" in them at best,
> > and are flat out crooked at worst.
>
> 1.) *Our representatives are sent to represent *us*. *The idea that
> somehow "our guy" should take care of us, but the "other guy" should
> do what's right "for the country" is some weird thinking. *If you want
> something other than representative democracy, you're going to have to
> change the Constitution. *A lot.

Then they're not representing *me* because I don't particularly want
them to do me any favors - I just want them to uphold the constitution
and do what's right.

>
> 2.) *Having known some state represntatives and senators (not
> national), they are decent folks who do a job that most folks don't
> want to do, or wouldn't want to, even if it paid 10x what it does
> nominally.

Of course. Even neglecting the job, I don't think I'd want my private
life being put on display as commonly happens in any kind of hotly
contested election. And that's even before i'd be elected and get to
find out what the job's *really* like. That doesn't keep me from
looking for a candidate that really reflects my views however (not
that I'm having much luck finding one.)

>
> So the idea that they are all "crooked", is just plain wrong. *None of
> them are going to do for "society as a whole" over what is best for
> their constituents - because their job is to represent us. *If you
> want them to do what's right at the expense of their constituents,
> then you're going to have to find a bus to that place everyone wants
> to go, but nobody can actually find - Utopia.
>
> E.P.

I'm not saying that they're all crooked. what I am saying, and you
appear to be saying as well, is that trusting a representative to
always do the right thing is naive at best.

nate

On Mar 21, 9:00*am, N8N > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 11:41*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 1:37*pm, N8N > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 16, 9:46*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 13, 6:19 pm, (Brent P)
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > > > > >Brent P wrote:
> > > > > >>Ed wrote:
> > > > > >>>Yes, yes - a vast, secret conspiracy to make Brent move to Montana
> > > > > >>>with his guns and live off-grid until the Apocalypse arrives. *Aaack -
> > > > > >>>my hat - the foil is ripped! *I'm getting the signals now!
>
> > > > > >> Bogglesome. Can't even have a decent discussion with you.
> > > > > >Actually, tell me more about this moving to Montana and living off-grid
> > > > > >thing. *Newsletter, subscribe, etc.
> > > > > >You can bet that if I ever become independently wealthy I'm probably
> > > > > >going to do something very similar to the above...
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > I don't really have much of a clue about it. I've been in 'the city'
> > > > > most of my life although I have picked up a fair amount from friends who
> > > > > grew up elsewhere.
>
> > > > If you haven't lived outside the city, or even an urbanized area, then
> > > > you have no clue. *Seriously.
>
> > > > Growing up on a farm teaches you a lot of things.
>
> > > > It teaches you a bunch about economics and commodities. *It teaches
> > > > you a ton about tax law and property law. *It teaches you how to get
> > > > along with your neighbor, even if you don't want to.
>
> > > > What's more, rural folks seem so much more relaxed and genuine than
> > > > city folks.
>
> > > I'm with you up to here.
>
> > > >*And, when it comes to self-governing, rural folks seem to
> > > > know that their neighbors know everything about them, so they'd better
> > > > do the job on the straight-and-narrow. *If you've never experienced
> > > > any sort of gov. outside of Cook Co., then you have absolutely no clue
> > > > about how most of America runs itself. *Yeah, so back-scratching goes
> > > > on - but not like in your neck of the woods. *Cook Co. is synonymous
> > > > with crooked politics. *Not everywhere is like that.
>
> > > > I can see easily how you and Matthew might view all gov. as crooked.
> > > > Philly ain't any group of saints. *But that doesn't imply that
> > > > EVERYWHERE is like that. *Or even resembles that. *Your myopia affects
> > > > your judgment - obviously. *Quick, get out of IL. *Go somewhere else.
> > > > Anywhere else. You'll see that what I say is true.
>
> > > > E.P.
>
> > > I disagree. *More often than not, any politician at higher than the
> > > very local level has at least a little "what's in it for me" or "what
> > > can I get for my constituents, never mind if it's at the expense of
> > > what's good for the country or society as a whole" in them at best,
> > > and are flat out crooked at worst.
>
> > 1.) *Our representatives are sent to represent *us*. *The idea that
> > somehow "our guy" should take care of us, but the "other guy" should
> > do what's right "for the country" is some weird thinking. *If you want
> > something other than representative democracy, you're going to have to
> > change the Constitution. *A lot.
>
> Then they're not representing *me* because I don't particularly want
> them to do me any favors - I just want them to uphold the constitution
> and do what's right.

Well, that's what everyone wants - from the other guys. My guy? I
want him to bring home the bacon.

You're shocked? Nate, before you were born, this was the way things
worked in the U.S. It hasn't changed at all, except that it's easier
to get rid of flat-out corrupt people, due to the increase in
available information.

BTW, I don't want my guy to bring home the bacon. It cost me too much
money. But you and I are in the minority. In any case,
representative democracy is about sending someone to *represent us*,
not to "do what's right" (As if that could be easily defined).

> > 2.) *Having known some state represntatives and senators (not
> > national), they are decent folks who do a job that most folks don't
> > want to do, or wouldn't want to, even if it paid 10x what it does
> > nominally.
>
> Of course. *Even neglecting the job, I don't think I'd want my private
> life being put on display as commonly happens in any kind of hotly
> contested election. *And that's even before i'd be elected and get to
> find out what the job's *really* like. *That doesn't keep me from
> looking for a candidate that really reflects my views however (not
> that I'm having much luck finding one.)

Wel, then, complaining about the guy that does get in seems sorta
silly, right? If you aren't willing to do the job, what right do you
have to complain about the guy who will?

> > So the idea that they are all "crooked", is just plain wrong. *None of
> > them are going to do for "society as a whole" over what is best for
> > their constituents - because their job is to represent us. *If you
> > want them to do what's right at the expense of their constituents,
> > then you're going to have to find a bus to that place everyone wants
> > to go, but nobody can actually find - Utopia.
>
> > E.P.
>
> I'm not saying that they're all crooked. *what I am saying, and you
> appear to be saying as well, is that trusting a representative to
> always do the right thing is naive at best.

They'll "do the right thing" if it corresponds with doing something
that their constituents want. That's the fundemental basis for
representative democracy. You can't separate one from another.

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:

>So the idea that they are all "crooked", is just plain wrong.

Strawmen arguments usually are wrong. The whole idea is that they are
easy to knock down.

On Mar 21, 9:35*am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >So the idea that they are all "crooked", is just plain wrong.
>
> Strawmen arguments usually are wrong. The whole idea is that they are
> easy to knock down.

It's a good thing I wasn't actually assigning anyone a position on the
subject, huh?

Learn to read before you ASSume anything, doofus.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> I think a link to the post in which he gave the made-up cite,

Pirrero, your position must be very weak if you must spend all your
time focusing on ONE link made more than a year ago to an inaccurate
cite so that you can avoid the numerous links to accurate cites and
numerous valid arguments I make.


> might shut his dumb ass up.

And, your having to resort to personal attacks also display a weakness
on your part.

We have the Right to Drive Automobiles on our Public Highways for
Personal Travel.

On Mar 22, 4:12*am, proffsl > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > I think a link to the post in which he gave the made-up cite,
>
> Pirrero, your position must be very weak if you must spend all your
> time focusing on ONE link made more than a year ago to an inaccurate
> cite so that you can avoid the numerous links to accurate cites and
> numerous valid arguments I make.
>
> > might shut his dumb ass up.
>
> And, your having to resort to personal attacks also display a weakness
> on your part.
>
> We have the Right to Drive Automobiles on our Public Highways for
> Personal Travel.

Yep. That was settled in court in Spokane last week. The comment by
the judge was "he has the right to drive as long as he has a
license". In relation to a case where a guy passed out and killed 5
people of one family - jury found him not guilty.

So once again you have it right but you conveniently omit the ending
part.

Harry K

On Mar 22, 5:12*am, proffsl > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > I think a link to the post in which he gave the made-up cite,
>
> Pirrero, your position must be very weak if you must spend all your
> time focusing on ONE link made more than a year ago to an inaccurate
> cite so that you can avoid the numerous links to accurate cites and
> numerous valid arguments I make.

You make NO valid arguments, as we proved in three threads over the
last two years. All of your cites contradicted you and supported us.

All of them.

As I told you, that fabricated cite you tried to palm off was not your
only error.

You constantly try to cobble together your own Frankenstein monster of
case law by lifting unrelated dicta from court cases having nothing to
do with licensing or driving, and string them together as though
that's valid.

It is not. That's not how the system works.

That's why all of the cases you cited on driving and licensing
actually UPHELD the legality and constitutionality of licensing. They
disproved your point.

So it's not only the completely fabricated case you presented; it's
all of them.

> > might shut his dumb ass up.
>
> And, your having to resort to personal attacks also display a weakness
> on your part.

Indeed, then you admit that's what it meant when you started the
personal attacks back then.

> We have the Right to Drive Automobiles on our Public Highways for
> Personal Travel.

But as we proved overwhelmingly and conclusively, ONLY with a license
and registration.

On Mar 22, 4:12 am, proffsl > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > I think a link to the post in which he gave the made-up cite,
>
> Pirrero, your position must be very weak ...


LOL. Irony always makes me chuckle.

E.P.

On Mar 22, 8:30*am, Harry K > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 4:12*am, proffsl > wrote:
> > Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > I think a link to the post in which he gave the made-up cite,
>
> > Pirrero, your position must be very weak if you must spend all your
> > time focusing on ONE link made more than a year ago to an inaccurate
> > cite so that you can avoid the numerous links to accurate cites and
> > numerous valid arguments I make.
>
> > > might shut his dumb ass up.
>
> > And, your having to resort to personal attacks also display a weakness
> > on your part.
>
> > We have the Right to Drive Automobiles on our Public Highways for
> > Personal Travel.
>
> Yep. *That was settled in court in Spokane last week. *The comment by
> the judge was "he has the right to drive as long as he has a
> license".

Actually, we have the Right to Drive, and this Right is being
circumvented by the application of unjustified police powers requiring
a driver's license.



> So once again you have it right but you conveniently omit the ending
> part.

So once again you have it right but incorrectly insert the ending part.