|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Understanding this /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1588596545 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 05/04/20 at 05:49:05 |
|
Title: Understanding this Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/04/20 at 05:49:05 should help with understanding me https://bustednuckles.com/2020/05/03/a-little-something-to-keep-in-mind-these-days/ Beacuse if you dont get this, you will never have a hope of understanding WHY I say the things I do. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/04/20 at 06:09:19 What I don't understand is when you're asked specifically what part of any given law you consider unconstitutional, as in the actual words, in the section(s), of the exact law, you won't say. I don't understand why you wont read the laws you claim are unconstitutional and present a useable argument for those that go out and try to do something about it. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/04/20 at 06:13:42 Im sure youve got at least one example.. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/04/20 at 06:17:33 42 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], specifically parts 70 and 71 that make is legal to issue quarantine. Is it unconstitutional to isolate legal US citizens that carry a disease that will infect others against their will? This also attaches to a degree to the "right to travel" that is unconstitutional, or at least a violation of your "rights" by your claims to prohibit someone from operating a motor vehicle for instance. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/04/20 at 06:52:13 Again,, a LAW that goes against the Constitution Is No Law at all... You can cite chapter and verse Law that requires things of the People,, BUT, IF it goes against the Constitution,, Its Null and Void, at the time of signing,not necessary that it be so labeled in court,, Now, Getting that Out of a court,, well,, thats another matter, entirely, innit? U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” – Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile I dont have a License to exercise my First amendment, And a License, BTW, is nothing more than Permission from the State to DO what would otherwise be illegal. For the good of the many arguments can be made on many ways,, Just as it would seem to be reasonable and in keeping people safe, all guns should be abolished,, to some peoples way of thinking,, that doesnt make it right. The Constitution doesnt Give us rights, nor does it enumerate all of them, it certainly is a statement that the government May Not interfere in our lives in certain places.. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/04/20 at 07:39:55 This is what I mean. You didn't read Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va, you got it from some "news" source I assume, or you are intentionally leaving out the full context in the hopes I would not research the case in full. The underlined sections are typically, and conveniently left out of the case you referenced. Why won't people read the material they reference? The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will. The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions. Read the outcomes of every one of those cases. Actually read them instead of selecting a sentence or two. Caneisha Mills v. D.C wasn't about licensed driving, nothing about the case is about her being able to legally drive with a license it was about the 4th Amendment. It literally references City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 48 (2000) where they address 4th Amendment and vehicle checkpoints and that has nothing at all to do with having a license. They even omit the portion about positive ID. Aram K. BERBERIAN v. Laure B. LUSSIER, Registrar of Motor Vehicles is not about the State's ability to revocation of a driver's license, it is about "suspension of his license without a prior hearing and without a showing of negligence on his part." And he lost: "It is our opinion that the provisions of the act requiring the registry to suspend licenses and to determine the amount of security to be deposited to avoid suspension does not constitute a delegation of judicial power so as to be repugnant to the constitutional prohibition." So now we want to use losing cases as precedence? These cases do outline that there is no Federal Law that says you must have a license. But every State says you do, which is why if you are driving on State roads you need a license. I can drive all day unlicensed on my personal property. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by MnSpring on 05/04/20 at 08:17:50 5575777F6275100 wrote:
By the way you said that statement, and your past comments/beliefs. This statement signifies that YOU believe that, “… legal US citizens that carry a disease that will infect others against their will …” Should be severely punished, confined, forcefully isolated, identified, tracked, issued, ’travel’ papers, etc, etc, etc, ! So then, it must also be the case that you believe, that in some States, like Calf, where a act of, “... knowingly exposing someone to other communicable diseases …” the punishment has been greatly reduced. Is totally wrong then ? https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-california-law-reduces-penalty-knowingly-exposing-someone-hiv-n809416 https://pridelegal.com/california-hiv-laws/ |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/04/20 at 08:34:01 "Should be severely punished, confined, forcefully isolated, identified, tracked, issued, ’travel’ papers, etc, etc, etc, !" I didn't say that in any capacity. I do not however think the general public should have to evacuate a plane for their own safety because a person with tuberculosis has the constitutional right to travel and as such no government entity can stop them. I don't think States should have to follow the President's idea that he has "absolute" authority. "So then, it must also be the case that you believe, that in some States, like Calf, where a act of, “... knowingly exposing someone to other communicable diseases …” the punishment has been greatly reduced. Is totally wrong then ? " I don't believe that. I never said anything like that, this is an example of using extreme circumstance to delegitimize my questions on where government powers should or should not be. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by MnSpring on 05/04/20 at 09:18:46 436361697463060 wrote:
Please explain your POV, on what the, punishment, restrictions, or what government powers should be used when, someone having HIV, knowingly infects someone else with HIV. "...I never said anything like that..." No you didn't. Nor did I say you did. I simply came to a logical conclusion, based on: "...the way you said that statement..." "...your past comments/beliefs..." "...this statement signifies that..." And this: "... the punishment has been greatly reduced. Is totally wrong then ? " And you said: "I don't believe that." Please clarify. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/04/20 at 09:34:01 "Please explain your POV, on what the, punishment, restrictions, or what government powers should be used when, someone having HIV, knowingly infects someone else with HIV." Each State has their own laws, much like any other assault law, and I agree with that process while I may not agree with every State's individual process. "And this: "... the punishment has been greatly reduced. Is totally wrong then ? " And you said: "I don't believe that." Please clarify. " I do not, as in I personally, take the stance that the linked article is "totally wrong". I think each State has the ability, and rightfully so, to make their own law regarding the punishment of intentional infection of HIV and specifically HIV as that is what the article is about. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by eau de sauvage on 05/04/20 at 13:37:53 2707050D1007620 wrote:
Serious question Eegore, do you really not understand why Trump refuses to answer questions that undo him. Because if you do then you by extension should be able to understand why JoG does the same. JoG just follows the example of Trump. And as JoG has no oversight he's free to obfuscate as much as he likes, especially with his loyal cavalry always ready to take up each other's slack. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/04/20 at 13:54:53 JoG exhibited this behavior prior to Trump's election announcement so I don't see any reason to think Trump has had anything to do with it. Some people just assemble opinions without bothering to research on their own, which is fine to me until they provide references that often say the opposite of what they claim. This is usually because they never took any time to look over their own evidence. So then I sit here wondering how they expect to be taken seriously when they cherry-pick the sentences or numbers they want to use and expect me to ignore the rest of the document they provided me. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by eau de sauvage on 05/04/20 at 14:27:59 @Eegore, Well that's a fair enough answer, but that it is the type of rhetorical device used by people who are patently incorrect or wish to pursue obviously incorrect lines of reasoning. We, all of us do cherry pick data to support our arguments, to at least a very small extent, even if it is by omission rather than commission. However people who wish to pursue, for example a plainly racist agenda, will go much further than cherry picking. To answer your question 'why does JoG do this" is to understand the very notion of 'the pertinent question'. And this is best illustrated by the cute fable of the new household cat. Previously the mice in the house had a pretty good time until the new cat arrived who was picking them off one at a time. So a grand meeting was called about how to deal with this new threat. All the mice gathered in the secret hole in the pantry to nut it out. There was much discussion when the idea of belling the cat was proffered. They would bell the cat and thus, while life would not be as good as it was they at least would be able to hear him coming which would give them a precious few seconds to scarper. Well, everyone thought this was an absolutely splendid idea, and merriment ensued and much alcoholic mead was consumed. That was until an elderly and wise old mouse, coughed and ahemed a bit until he got everyone's attention, out of respect they all quietened down and clearing his throat once more, the old mouse said, "this is no doubt a marvellous idea" which he fully endorses, however he did have one question, "who will bell the cat". He sat down and everyone went quiet. Who will bell the cat is what is known as a pertinent question and it never needs to be answered. The very asking of the question is sufficient to undo the false or illogical or specious reasoning on which it is based. I think you might suspect, Eegore, when you ask a pertinent question and we all know why you'll never get an answer, in the very asking of the question you undo the argument. You'll only get an answer from those who are willing to engage in good faith, and good faith is not something that JoG or the other Trumpeteers are interested in. Yes it's true that Trump did not create this technique, however he gives validation to those with his capacity for racist, ugly, and patently false reasoning. JoG simply takes it to the ultimate extreme where his stock answer, if he does answer at all is to simply say "lies!" it's all lies. Quite insane really. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by MnSpring on 05/04/20 at 15:11:23 7E6C787B6C6A680D0 wrote:
Good story, haven't heard it for a long time. The only differences were: "... All the, (Ultra-Liberal/Progressive), mice gathered in the secret hole ..." and "... an elderly, (Conservative), and wise old mouse ..." |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/04/20 at 15:53:37 I'm not all that interested in the personal politics of a situation in most cases. For instance it doesn't matter if someone is racist, or not racist, a DFI TDS UL QWYJIBO, or Conservative when it comes to reading the material they provide, in full, and trying to have an adult conversation about the content of that material. The issue for me is the expectation that I ignore the parts of the material they don't like, or didn't even bother to look at. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by eau de sauvage on 05/04/20 at 16:34:16 7757555D4057320 wrote:
Well in that case, I would suggest that you are making a fundamental error regarding living peacefully in the world. It is not possible to change anyone, you can help them to change if indeed change is required but no one will change unless they themselves choose to do so. Many people do not understand this and you appear to have fallen into this trap in the mistaken belief that your logic and plainly obvious reasoning will be enough. It won't. JoG has made it patently clear that he is perfectly happy with the extreme positions he takes, even going so far as to claim to 'love' president Trump. And as they say, love is blind. The question that I have for you, is that you obviously feel that everyone should be logical and reasonable, so do you believe that JoG needs to change with regard to his attitude of ignoring your simple statements, in order to continue his blithe disregard of the truth. In other words you may have thought at one time that you could change him. Do you still think you can in spite of it being obvious that he does not wish to change. I would suggest that if you are unable to accept someone as they are, no matter how unreasonable they may be, then you're in for a tough time and perhaps you need to examine your own reasons for expecting unreasonable people to change. You see Eegore, you may think that others need to change, but they think the same of you, that you need to change. Logic, truth, fairness, or what is plainly right, doesn't come into it. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by eau de sauvage on 05/04/20 at 16:39:30 @mn, You've completely missed the point of the story, it's not about politics it's about a rhetorical device known as 'the pertinent question'. Anyone can ask a 'pertinent question' regardless of their political persuasion. This was trying to explain to Eegore, the futility of asking them and expecting an answer. A pertinent question such as I have explained will never be answered because the answer is contained in the question. It's simply a rhetorical device. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by MnSpring on 05/04/20 at 17:06:54 64766261767072170 wrote:
I believe the, 'point' of the fable, was that a group of Ultra Liberal, Fairy Dust Sprinkling, Progressive Socialists, came up with a idea that could not be accomplished. To which a Wise, Experienced, Conservative, pointed out the, 'idea', was good, but with no way to implement that idea, it would not work. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/04/20 at 17:57:14 "The question that I have for you, is that you obviously feel that everyone should be logical and reasonable, so do you believe that JoG needs to change with regard to his attitude of ignoring your simple statements, in order to continue his blithe disregard of the truth. In other words you may have thought at one time that you could change him. Do you still think you can in spite of it being obvious that he does not wish to change." No, I've never indicated in any way people should change or that I have any expectation of change of any form. I have actually indicated multiple times change is not likely to happen and that I am not concerned with any of you, or this forum, on an emotional level. I have also indicated multiple times that I am not attempting to change anyone's mind. I have indicated multiple times that my intent is not typically to change anyone's mind, I am almost always clarifying or disputing the accuracy of presented material. "You see Eegore, you may think that others need to change, but they think the same of you, that you need to change. Logic, truth, fairness, or what is plainly right, doesn't come into it." I have never said anyone needs, should, could, or in any way presented an opinion about a member's capacity to change, stay the same, or anything in-between. I do however take issue with the material they present, especially when they ignore major sections of it. If you examine the content of my posts they are almost exclusively discussing the accuracy of a statement, or presented material. For instance in this post I don't care if JoG thinks its unconstitutional to require a driver's license, I only care that he presents specifically the portions of the court documents that support his position and leaves out anything that would conflict with that, as if I can't read myself. I could care less if anyone continues to do this, I just don't understand why. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by eau de sauvage on 05/04/20 at 20:55:48 @Eegore, I have indicated multiple times that my intent is not typically to change anyone's mind... Yes, you have said that multiple times, but your actions indicate the opposite. You appear to be bewildered as to why JoG, provide obvious bs, or phantom claims or quotes, yet refused to back them up, or even acknowledge this when you challenge him. You've already agreed that he just keeps doing this and you keep trying to even get him to acknowledge what he's doing. You also agree he's been doing this for a long time. Therefore, why do you keep asking him the same type of leading questions. Do you think it's accidental on his part, that one day he'll slap his thigh and exclaim "I see the light". If you don't expect him to change, and that's a fair expectation, to not expect him to change, then why do you persist in pointing out to him the same types of errors he makes. Why? It is for fun, I mean, if you said that I'd get it. It is amusing to see these types of Trumpeteers do this, but it's much more amusing to see Trump do this, live on the world stage. It's why I have mixed emotions about his eventual removal from office by the people in seven months, it will be a blessed relief from the endless bs, but at the same time we be losing an almost untapped source of golden comedy that will last for generations. And a Trump unencumbered by needing to win a third term will certainly be an otherworldly comedy experience. Not for those in the US to be sure, but definitely for the rest of the world. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/05/20 at 02:10:07 "Yes, you have said that multiple times, but your actions indicate the opposite. You appear to be bewildered as to why JoG, provide obvious bs, or phantom claims or quotes, yet refused to back them up, or even acknowledge this when you challenge him. You've already agreed that he just keeps doing this and you keep trying to even get him to acknowledge what he's doing. You also agree he's been doing this for a long time." Being bewildered about a person's actions is not, to me, indication I would like them to change. For instance it bewilders me that people watch fictional television at all, and I have plenty of questions about that, but zero expectation that they stop watching TV. "Therefore, why do you keep asking him the same type of leading questions. Do you think it's accidental on his part, that one day he'll slap his thigh and exclaim "I see the light". If you don't expect him to change, and that's a fair expectation, to not expect him to change, then why do you persist in pointing out to him the same types of errors he makes." These are the types of questions I have in this type of situation. When somebody refences a court case, I will often times have questions about that court case. With JoG, and others, the questions are usually about the rest of the document and not just the paragraph they selected, or had selected for them. I do not expect them to change this pattern, and am not invested in any type of change, however I will still have questions and will often times ask them. "Why? It is for fun, I mean, if you said that I'd get it. It is amusing to see these types of Trumpeteers do this, but it's much more amusing to see Trump do this, live on the world stage. It's why I have mixed emotions about his eventual removal from office by the people in seven months, it will be a blessed relief from the endless bs, but at the same time we be losing an almost untapped source of golden comedy that will last for generations. And a Trump unencumbered by needing to win a third term will certainly be an otherworldly comedy experience. Not for those in the US to be sure, but definitely for the rest of the world." None of this has anything to do with Trump as far as I am concerned since as I indicated before this pattern of conversation existed prior to Trump's Presidential attempts were announced. If the exact same court cases were referenced by someone with no political affiliation at all I would have the exact same questions. Had you cited these court cases, I would have asked you the exact same questions. I ask these questions because I have them. That's it. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by eau de sauvage on 05/05/20 at 03:25:28 @Eegore, yes I get all that. In fact when I first made the error of getting involved in this part of the forum, I sort of played it with a straight bat, but it quickly became clear to me that there was something very wrong. Nevertheless I'd drop it and go back to the straight bat, which is why I made the (ludicrous in hindsight) suggestion that we cut out the mindless personal abuse, which for a while worked in that the dare I say it liberal fcuktards, i.e. me and other thinking people, just copped the abuse without retaliation. After a little more of this, it was readily apparent that the people like, well you know who, were never ever going to engage in good faith as a matter of principle. I have to admire your persistence though. However in case you're wondering why I still persist albeit without trying to waste my time by taking them seriously, it is because they give me a window on a whole class of Brietbarty type people, without having to deal with more than a few. In fact after a bit of a recent tour of Breitbart, especially the comments section I see that these types of non thinking individuals are commonplace. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it does surprise me. But yes they do predate Trump and in fact Trump probably worked out that this was the group that he'd have most success playing up to. Them and the extreme Christian lobby whose desire for the subjugation of women by forcing them to have children instead of abortions, also benefit from a symbiotic relationship with Trump. At least they have a plan, or an ideal, unlike Lindsay Graham who just craves power for its own sake. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by pg on 05/05/20 at 09:42:36 has made it patently clear that he is perfectly happy with the extreme positions he takes Evidently this is beyond the comprehension of the left. A sizeable portion of the country supports Trumps platform as the electoral college reveals. Yes Trump is pompous, unsavory, so on; however, prior to the virus many of us were very pleased with the direction of his administration. What policies do you not agree with? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by MnSpring on 05/05/20 at 10:42:33 0C2C2E263B2C490 wrote:
So glad you use the word, "... typically ...", |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/05/20 at 11:48:07 So glad you use the word, "... typically ...", As am I, this is why I selected it. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by eau de sauvage on 05/05/20 at 14:00:17 A sizeable portion of the country supports Trumps platform as the electoral college reveals. You must have had an irony transplant. The electoral college is an archaic remnant designed to appease the governors when the Constitution was drafted and the Founders would be horrified at it's effect 200 years later. The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012 |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by pg on 05/05/20 at 15:34:20 Australia was founded in 1788 and no formal document of your rights or lack of rights. Please tell us when you get a constitution on your island. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/08/20 at 09:56:56 Back to my original post,, Ive been bust A.F. the lAST FEW DAYS, grandkids and real life intruded,, Now,, I know heads will explode,, BUYT,, The nannyism of OHH, But we MUST have licenses, else How will we ever Protect Everyone else?? BULLSHIT, thats not Why licenseing started.. It was to make commercial haulers Pay for the Priveledge of Using the roads Built By the taxes from the public, For the public,,Naturally that mutated.. Nope. No Licenses required for public use,, None Zero,, OHH, BUt you cant DO that,, Thats Dangerous,, REally? And just how HARD is driving? Seriously,, A damm five year old can drive,, Saw it on the news,, He made it quite a ways before he was stopped.. NOT Crashed, Stopped.. Prior Restraint,, OHh thats how we accomplish Keeping people Saaafe,, Its for your Saaafety,,, No,, You hold people REsponsible for Their Behavior.. Thats what the Law is for. Not to keep people from doing things, but to hold them accountable.. Driver traiining otta be Part OF school.. Everyone who is about to be the age they can get a license should be able to sign up for a class and get a certificate. Possession of said certification not required,, Like your diploma,, You dont carry that around.. Just because peple are trained to accept it all as Right doesnt mean reimagining things couldnt be better. But, movement towards individual freedom is met , always, by nanny staters, with Gasps, clutching of pearls, and cries of Ohh, NOOO,, Kinda like when Texas said it was okay to CC your gun in the restaurant /bar,,, Gonne Be BLOOD in the Steeets! Nope,, CC started getting more and more common.. Gun VIOLENCE will Skyrocket!!! Nope,, Not just wrong, but the exact opposite was true. So, since Ive been wrong so often,, I am probably wrong here, too.. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by srinath on 05/08/20 at 10:05:54 7166606C6373010 wrote:
No no, I'm sure something was shoved up the Mandarin speaking Kevin Rudd's rear end when he was bending over for the Chinese. It will turn up soon, interpreted into aussie English for our benefit. Words like wombat, straya thingy etc etc a plenty will be in it. What wont be in it, is birthright citizenship - cos they shredded that in 86. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/08/20 at 10:34:34 REally? And just how HARD is driving? Seriously,, A damm five year old can drive,, Saw it on the news,, He made it quite a ways before he was stopped.. NOT Crashed, Stopped.. Thats a really poor argument. Lets get 100 5 year old kids, put them on public roads and see what happens. By your logic driving is easy based off of how far "quite a ways" is and if a person will crash a car. Lets compare that to how many car accidents there are a day and see if you want to stick to that formula. You select what you want and discard evidence you don't like and expect us to do the same. You reference court cases you wont even read as proof and conveniently leave out the parts that indicate opposite of what your claims are. "So, since Ive been wrong so often,, I am probably wrong here, too.." I'd say you are right about the gun assessment but are using very incorrect methods of assessment to calculate how difficult driving is, and are referencing documents very selectively to only show the parts you like and not the whole document. So the Constitutionality argument for licensing may be right, but you are using a terrible method of proving that. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by MnSpring on 05/08/20 at 10:50:54 41534744535557320 wrote:
Indeed ! Please explain why, you persist in pointing out, if a person stands on the Right side of a desk to change a light bulb, it is wrong. (Because they should have stood on the, Left, side !) ;D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/08/20 at 11:07:15 Well, E,, You may be right.. Im not a lawyer, Im Just an Ol Guy, who has a serious libertarian bent and a belief in freedom. Not to say being anything than less tthana responsible for our own actions, but this, what I call Nanny statist need to include regulations and hoops to jump through and monies to be paid for a license to DO what common sense tells us is a natural right, is just beyond me. Just because it has "always been so" in OUR lives doesnt make it right. If you see where Im comin from and kinda agree,, Ill call that good. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/08/20 at 11:36:53 I've put way too many dead people from motor vehicle accidents in the morgue to say I'd agree that the operation of a motor vehicle should be a "right" and should't require some sort of assessment before letting someone loose on public roads. I recall one of my friends constantly cutting people off on left hand turns at stoplights when he got the green, the very thing that kills so many motorcyclists, and it turns out he thought if he could gun it fast enough he was allowed to make a left turn like that. All of the high-school kids in the rehab class I assist with have zero parental guidance, they learned by riding with other kids and video games. The very fact that getting in a car and hitting the gas is so easy is also what makes them so dangerous. Any kid can get in and send a ton of metal into you at 60mph, and do so without so much as one adult ever passing on education. Personally haven't seen evidence that operating a motor vehicle is "Constitutionally" protected as I do not think "travel" constitutes the operation of a vehicle. For instance I can "travel" by train but don't need to be the conductor. Should we be able to freely travel from state to state as long as we are abiding by the law? Absolutely, and that is what Federal interstate commerce laws protect. However I do think each state should have an idea of how many vehicles are using the roads, and have a way to identify who is operating what vehicle. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by MnSpring on 05/08/20 at 11:43:38 4C5355524F4879497941535F14260 wrote:
More than once I have told a, Policeman, County employees, Town Counsel's, "No, you can not, just make something up, because you want to" AFTER THEY HAVE TOLD ME, "Well this is just the way we do it", AND, many, Many, MANY more need to do the SAME thing ! |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/08/20 at 11:57:48 0E2E2C24392E4B0 wrote:
Were the people who caused the accidents licensed? I didnt say Untrained, everything we do that has a potential to negatively affect others, we need to do responsibly. Being TRained to drive is reasonable,, every REsposnsibel person would Want to be trained. How many people want to get in a car and go down the road KNowing that They dont know what they are ding? Reasonable people know car wrecks kill people,, and , Not Wanting to get killed, they KNow they need training,,, So The Law holds people accountable for their bad behavior. Since going down roads is so necessary in society, and since school is Supposed to Prepare our young for life, Driver training should be part of it. Its nt as if there arent driving schools for people to pay to get taught, if they are adult immigrants.. Licensed people are the overwhelming majority of At Fault people in crashes,, So, clearly, the license ist exactly a safeguard against wrecks. No licensing isnt suggesting NO TRaining. I think I made that clear, Just like I never suggested idiots who have no idea about safe handling and accurate use of guns should ever carry,, Its up to the individual to live responsibly and not ruin others lives. The Law holds people accountable,, Prior REstraint by telling people what they must do is BS,, My driving teacher let me drive with one hand on the wheel and an elbow out the window, because she could tell I was able.. I took off in a 3 speed standard pickup, out in an alfalfa field, when I was about 6.. I didnt spin tires, didnt jak rabbit it, didnt kill it,, drove off as smooth as my Grampa,, and hit second, made a circle,, Stopped, did it again,, The guy I was with was standin in the field, frustrated, but shocked,, I never got in trouble,, because I did such a good job,, they just told me dont do that, you cant see well enough to avoid the irrigation ditches,, But I could drive when I was just a kid,, because I watched what was happening,, Ive seen others who, in spite of training, they werent wurfacrap.. I disagree with LICENSING,, not training.. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/08/20 at 12:06:09 I'd like to see a driver's license be a verification of good training. Like a medical or pilot's license. Instead of just saying someone should be trained, but there's no way to know for sure. The problem is that putting together a good program takes money, and that means payment is some regard. I'd rather people who choose to drive pay than the general public, so I'd rather see a fee for having proof of training over a tax. Just like a motorcycle endorsement. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/08/20 at 12:11:53 You dont need to KNOw if someone is trained,, Not everyone needs it, and some, even with it suck. Its a crapshoot. OFFER training in school. Its available in the Free Market. If an irresponsible party chooses to forego training and they cause an accident, they are legally responsible.It Worked Just Like that for a long time. The average person wouldnt ever get in a car and go down the road knowing they dint know what they were doin.. I ouldnt, even tho I felt pretty good about my driving Let people be responsible. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/08/20 at 13:40:52 "The average person wouldnt ever get in a car and go down the road knowing they dint know what they were doin." I have no idea how one would conclude this to be true. I think plenty of people that didn't know how to drive worth a darn were on the roads, but vehicles with a top speed of 30mph on rural roads are less likely to damage others, offer more margin of error and less chance of injury. Even if it were true it is literally a process of saying that all we need to make the roads safer is for people to to just start being responsible. That process won't help a single one of the kids with dead or heroine addicted parents that gave them keys at 12 years old to go buy drugs. People need to be better as a strategy has never solved any problem. By this logic we could improve government by letting politicians be more responsible. Or we could let politicians conduct insider trading until someone gets harmed. The issue is that as more and more vehicles operated at higher speeds we learned that the old "wait and see what happens" process kills people. There was a time when one could practice medicine without a license, and after tons of fraud and deaths it was decided that maybe waiting for someone to kill a child, or defraud the elderly, is more damaging than requiring accreditation. Infant mortality rates plummeted once OBGYN accreditation began. So if we know that training decreases, not eliminates but decreases, damage and fatality rates with motorcycles, and planes, and tractors, and tanks, boats, trains, scooters, skateboards, etc. why would we choose to rely on the responsibility of a 16 year old to decide if they need some training or not? That kid knows if they need some instruction more than decades of driving instructors? |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by MnSpring on 05/08/20 at 13:53:22 0B2B29213C2B4E0 wrote:
Could very well be. Their are Millions of people that know more about a subject, than the, ‘teacher/instructor', of that subject ! |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/08/20 at 13:56:53 "Could very well be. Their are Millions of people that know more about a subject, than the, ‘teacher/instructor', of that subject !" I agree that in rare circumstance, however I do not agree that millions of 16 year old kids can conduct themselves better behind the wheel than accredited driving instructors. If this were true we would have a lot of 16 year olds with better jobs. This is why I always offer to allow people to give it a try instead of just talking about how good they are. Typically they decline. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/08/20 at 14:51:31 And,one more time TRaining should be made available.. The school can require that class, for credit, to graduate. I sure as hekk didnt conduct myself responsibly, I was still a terror on the road as an adult.. BUT,, I didnt cause wrecks,, Had I, I would have been dealt with according to the law.. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by Eegore on 05/08/20 at 17:21:06 What do we do about high-school drop outs? My experience is these are at most risk for not knowing how to drive. The ones I know learned by stealing cars. What about 16 year olds legal to drive by the State but haven't graduated yet which I imagine are most of them? I would rather see a requirement to drive versus a requirement to graduate from a public school. Also as I said before I'd rather driver's fund it over public taxes. |
|
Title: Re: Understanding this Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/08/20 at 20:19:25 Well, Its not a worfect Porld, Ever notice you dont have to show a license to buy insurance? Im talking about a broader concept. The ever tightening requirements you offer lead nowhere for me. How many drop out beforey even turn 16? Wait, I dont care,, Nothing is perfect, Nothing satisfies Every contingency except totalitarianism |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |