wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > > He used crap cites to support his strange conclusions,
>
> > Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our Right
> > to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"! And, as
> > my conclusion is also that we have the Right to Drive automobiles on
> > our public highways, then I suppose that's "strange" that my
> > conclusion coincides with the courts.
>
> You have selectively presented your claim here - you say you have a
> right to drive without a license yet not one single solitary court in
> the land that has considered this question agrees.
Point A: I have stated, and proven, that courts have recognized our
Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways:
"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions. Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." -- State of Idaho v. Mark
Wilder (2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf
There can be no reasonable denial that the courts above have
recognized our "right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways"
In this recognition, no appendage is added to this Right, as you have
often falsely claimed. Point A is affirmed.
Point B: I have also stated, and proven, that dispite those courts
recognizing our Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways,
they choose to circumvent this Right by their employment of a police
power:
"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the exercise of its police power." -- State of Idaho v.
Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/
idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf
This is not an appendage to our "right to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways", but instead a circumvention of that Right by the
employment of a police power. Point B is affirmed.
Point C: A police power must not be arbitrary or unreasonable:
"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the
people so long as the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable."
-- State of Idaho v. Mark Wilder (2003) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf
Of these facts, you only prove yourself to be a fool to continue to
deny. Point C is affirmed.
> > And, my claim is that Driver Licensing IS INDEED "arbitrary and
> > unreasonable", thus my claim that Driver Licensing serves no
> > purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't
> > already serve.
>
> And that claim is summarily dismissed as incorrect and disproven.
summarily - "done without delay or formality : quickly executed"
In other words, you have "dismissed as incorrect and disproven" more
as a reflex, without any substantive thought or consideration, much
less evidence.
> > In support of this claim, I present evidence that about 98% of all
> > automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence:
>
> This is your famous misrepresentation of a study that doe NOT say
> what you claim.
Instead of expecting us to honor your summarily issued dispute, why
don't you elaborate? My claim is that 98% of automobile accidents are
caused by willful acts of negligence. My supporting evidence is:
"The majority of car accidents are caused by irresponsible driving
behavior. Statistics also show that 98% of car accidents involve a
single distracted driver." - http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/common-causes-of-car-accidents.html
"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs, in the USA, or Road
Traffic Accidents, RTAs, in Europe) involve some degree of driver
behavior combined with one of the other three factors. Drivers always
try to blame road conditions, equipment failure, or other drivers for
those accidents. When the facts are truthfully presented, however, the
behavior of the implicated driver is usually the primary cause. Most
are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver behavior." -
http://www.smartmotorist.com/acc/acc.htm
Googling "Primary Cause of Automobile Accidents" clearly returns
preponderous quantities of evidence that the primary cause of
automobile accidents is negligence. Given this preponderance of
evidence, I fail to see how you can, with any shred of credibility,
deny that 95% to 98% of automobile accidents are caused by negligence.
Now, in your "summarily" hasty and clumsy fashion, I suppose you might
be trying to dispute the whole by disputing a part. In this case, you
might be trying to dispute the fact that "95% to 98% of automobile
accidents are caused by negligence" by disputing that such negligence
was willful.
You might as well attempt to dispute that "Monarch butterflies EAGERLY
migrate south" as if you are disputing that "Monarch butterflies
migrate south".
But, back to the point, negligent driving isn't because one CAN NOT
drive safely, but rather instead because they CAN but WILL NOT drive
safely. I would dare say that of those 98% who are negligent, that
virtually 100% of them CAN drive safely. Therefore, we are only left
with the fact that they WILL NOT drive safely.
> This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and your continued
> use of this false citation is insulting.
When you say "false citation", are you claiming that my cites point to
nowhere, that I have falsely quoted them, or that the cites themself
contain false information? Or, are you merely saying that my cites
don't say what you'd like to say I'm saying?
I think it is the latter, as you did in the opening of this post,
saying:
"you say you have a right to drive without a license "
Where in fact, I am saying:
Point A: "we have the Right to Drive Automobiles on our public
highways"
and:
Point B: "That Right is being circumvented by a police power"
and:
Point C: "Police powers must not be arbitrary and unreasonable"
and:
Point D: "Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that
laws against endangerment didn't already serve."
Therefore, those police powers circumventing our Right to Drive
automobiles on our public highways are indeed "arbitrary and
unreasonable".
> > > It doesn't say uch for them that they just can't leave him alone,
> > > but the guy thrives on the abuse they heap on him. This brainless
> > > twit is not much different. It's a sad case of masochistic mental
> > > masturbation.
>
> > And now, according to Dave, if I don't surrender the truth to the
> > jackals then run and hide at the first hint of personal attacks from
> > jackals like himself, or k_flynn, then I am a "sad case of masochistic
> > mental masturbation."
>
> I guess you couldn't have said it better yourself, then. Except for
> the part about you "surrendering the truth" since all you have is a
> pack of lies and misrepresentations, which we have proven. But no,
> we haven't run and hid from you when you first initiate personal
> attacks. People like you are a dime a dozen.
Then, one might begin to suspect you are a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."
|
