🚀 go-pugleaf

"Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kJQL9.227603$C8.647502@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:DtGL9.3288$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".
>
Sure does, My single car is one of your "any", and therefore your statement
is false. You do not have the right to ride as a passenger in "any" vehicle.
As I stated.

> > 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.

Oh? And the facilities that permit and allow flight?

> >
> > > 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.

There you go. "Driving", in the context of on the public roadways, requires
a license, and holding a license is a privilege.

> >
> > > 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.

They were enough to show your statement to be false. That's all that need be
done.

> > > 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.

You mean you're no longer arguing your "right" to be a "passenger"? If the
vehicle "isn't the issue", what point specifically mentioning an ambulance?

> > > 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.

No, _your_ argument has changed, from your "right" to be a "passenger" to a
"right" to be permitted  passage over a roadway.