🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DtGL9.3288$pS6.654842@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pxwL9.227299$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 are very correct that I have no right to travel in your car. That is
your private property, but that hardly translates to
"I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in any
vehicle".

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

Air travel is a different situation. The skies are not built and paid for
with tax dollars.

>
> > 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.

I cannot quite determine what point you are attempting to make here. I think
everybody is in agreement that
holding a drivers license is considered a privlege under the law.

>
> > 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.

Thats just wonderful, but your car and your decisions are hardly worthy of
debate on a newsgroup.

> > >
> > > > 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".

The vehicle and who owns it is not the issue, it is the right of passage
that is at issue.
>
> > 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.
>
My argument remains absolutely unchanged, you however are all over the map.
Your argument has gone from "all" vehicles to only "your" vehicle and
then...to airplanes.

>