🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5iaL9.1484$pS6.216317@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f%6L9.226822$C8.636120@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > Correct my if I am wrong but I have never believed it to be a "privlege"
> to
> > travel as a passenger in a vehicle.
>
> Who can correct what you state you believe?
>
> I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in any
> vehicle".

Yes you can say that, but can you present any facts to support it?
The law is explicit in stating that it is a privlege to hold a drivers
license but
can you provide any references that will support your above statement which
appears to
be presented as a fact?

BTW  YOU can "correct" or maybe change what I believe if you can present a
logical argument based in fact
that will "correct" my mind...I mean change my mind.

>
> > If this were true, it would be a "privlege" for you to transported to a
> > hospital when the old ticker becomes erratic.
>
> If you wish to look at it that way. You certainly don't have a "right". If
> there were no ambulances available could you sue the State under the
Charter
> for "denial of rights"? No.


Would you point out where I implied that  the state is obligated to supply
ambulances?
I only suggested that it is a right to be permitted passage over a roadway
that was
built and paid for with tax dollars.
If you can show me that it is in fact a privlege, I will have to accept
that.

A self righteous rant does not qualify as fact.