🚀 go-pugleaf

"Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pxwL9.227299$C8.641769@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:5iaL9.1484$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?

Sure. I have a car. You can't ride in my car - beacsue I won't let you.
Try to sue me.

You can be denied passage on a commercial aircraft for any number of
reasons. You have no "right" to fly.

> 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?

If that's what the law states. then that's what it is. Notice the wording -
you have no "right" to a drivers license. That says nothing about "driving".
You can drive you car on your own property without a license, or insurance,
you know.

> 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.

The "logical argument" is "my car" - and I decide who rides in it.

> >
> > > 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?

They aren't. Therefore, no "right".

> I only suggested that it is a right to be permitted passage over a roadway
> that was
> built and paid for with tax dollars.

That's not what you said.

> If you can show me that it is in fact a privlege, I will have to accept
> that.

You've changed your argument.