🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:06:44 -0400, "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"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?

Read the charter of rights and freedoms?

>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.
>
>
>
>
>