Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

page: 22
88
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I proved this by speaking to the Section of which you cited of the New York Code. Your dismissal of that proof is no different than any flat earther response.

edit on 11-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Why wont you give me a Yes or No answer to my questions?

Answer this, with a yes or no:

In human history, has there ever been a civilization that succeeded without laws, or anyone enforcing laws, such as a police force? Remember, just yes or no!
edit on 8-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)


Yes.




Great! Name this successful society! I know you are going to say "AMERICA 1776 BUDDY WHOOHOO!!!" which just shows how little you truly know about our founding fathers and the constitution. Go back to 4chan, they are more your level.


No. You wanted a one-word answer, without expansion, You specified "just yes or no", and that's what you got.

Do your own homework. I'm not your teacher.

You may - or may not - have noticed that American society has laws and police, so no, that's not the correct answer - but there are some, if you bother to educate yourself.


edit on 2012/4/11 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I proved this by speaking to the Section of which you cited of the New York Code. Your dismissal of that proof is no different than any flat earther response.

edit on 11-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


And I showed that you only referenced the portions of the code that you wished to use. And furthermore, you argument of where the code applies was again, laid out firmly in part 1. Your dismissal is not proof! And since thousands of people a day are charged with this (and rightfully so, I may add) the burden of proof is on you....proof which you dont have. I dont have to prove anything, it is proven for me every day.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Why wont you give me a Yes or No answer to my questions?

Answer this, with a yes or no:

In human history, has there ever been a civilization that succeeded without laws, or anyone enforcing laws, such as a police force? Remember, just yes or no!
edit on 8-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)


Yes.




Great! Name this successful society! I know you are going to say "AMERICA 1776 BUDDY WHOOHOO!!!" which just shows how little you truly know about our founding fathers and the constitution. Go back to 4chan, they are more your level.


No. You wanted a one-word answer, without expansion, You specified "just yes or no", and that's what you got.

Do your own homework. I'm not your teacher.

You may - or may not - have noticed that American society has laws and police, so no, that's not the correct answer - but there are some, if you bother to educate yourself.


edit on 2012/4/11 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


Ah, the old "Well, if you dont know, Im not gonna tell you!" trick. What is this, "Question Avoidance for Kintergardeners"?

You cant answer it. Which is obvious, because you have been avoiding the question repeatedly for about 10 pages.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Hey I thought we were gonna throw McDonalds in jail ?
What about philip-morris ?

Those guys are SERIAL KILLERS!

IF......IF!...the gov cared one iota about human life, they would force all cigarette companies to close.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


You "showed" nothing at all, and all you've done is play transparent games that don't fool anyone. Both You and I have provided links to Section 509 of the New York Code, and were I to attempt to quote it in its entirety it couldn't be done in one single post, and I would only be doing so to appease a poster who has consistently made absurd arguments and relied so heavily upon logical fallacy that it has come to the point where I am reminded of a ancient Chinese axiom:

"When a wise man argues with a fool, it is hard to tell them apart."

You've argued your case and badly. You've not done the State of New York any favors by making the silly arguments you've made, and were you a prosecutor for that state they would have let go of you long ago.

You can stick your fingers in your ear and scream at the top of your lungs "La la la la la la la - I can't hear you - la la la la la", but this does not make for an impressive argument.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Ah, the old "Well, if you dont know, Im not gonna tell you!" trick. What is this, "Question Avoidance for Kintergardeners"?

You cant answer it. Which is obvious, because you have been avoiding the question repeatedly for about 10 pages.


No, this is "how to train kindergartners not to set ridiculously arbitrary parameters in an effort to stack the deck in their favor".

I provided the answer you specified yourself, within the parameters you specified. Now it seems you want to change those parameters in an effort to either a) avoid having to do the work yourself, or b) try to steer the conversation in a direction you are comfortable with.

That may be allowed in kindergarten, but it won't be here. You can sit and whine the age-old question of all two year olds - "why?" all day long, but until you do your own homework, you have the answer you required of me.

Lesson: don't set ridiculous limits and then expect me to violate them on your command. Jump through your own hoops.

I've never "avoided the question" - anyone, anyone at all, can go back through my replies and prove to themselves that is not the case, however loudly you may scream it. I provided answers - with lengthy and in-depth explanations - and YOU are the one who couldn't handle the answers, and so started trying to set limits on them with which YOU are comfortable to steer them to YOUR preferred conclusion.

I met your limits, and there you have your answer.

Deal with it.


edit on 2012/4/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 



Driving a tractor on a farm field is quite different than driving a mustang at 55 on the public roads.


Yes, quite different, but equally as dangerous and difficult. I suspect you have never driven a tractor.

Also, I did not say that driving the tractor was limited to fields, it was and is not. Also, you ignored my other post on the subject, which was a direct reply to a post of yours.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Actually, there was a time when 10 year olds could drive. Under some circumstances, there are many ten year olds that can drive adequately.

Not all ten year olds are the same, and many have the capability, the problem is identifying those circumstances.


It is all about the circumstances and the individual, but the law cares nothing about these realities.

Plenty of people should never get behind the wheel of a Mustang and drive it on public roads. I see plenty of people out there driving, of all ages, who should not be driving because they can't handle a vehicle, don't have what it takes. Thus I applaud the Op.

The bigger problem is that Corporations have succeed in forcing everyone to take the risk, and get behind the wheel out of necessity, for the profit of the corporations.

The bigger insanity is these laws that make people into criminals for violating vague traffic rules that we are all forced to violate on a daily basis. It would be understandable if public safety was the true concern, but collecting revenues for local government, justifying jobs, and robbing people of their liberties seems to be the main point behind the whole abusive system.

You got talent as a poster, but you need to stop cherry picking your responses, getting emotional, and get a lot more clever with your pot shots. Concentrate on the message, and forget about winning the debate.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Good for you in standing up to the judge, on occasion it happens, and the judge actually respects the law. All too often, the judge doesn't care that they are ignoring the law, the system is so completely stacked in their favor, it would literally take a an act of the state legislature to do anything about it.

You are absolutely right, a great deal of judicial actions are established by tricks, getting people to surrender their rights, forcing them into proceeding into traps designed specifically to rob them of their rights.

Attention should be paid to the reality, that calls for state rights, often evolve around the reality that local governments are always so much easier to manipulate. The speed trap is a classic example of how many of these small towns would screw people over, turning the local cop and judge into nothing but opportunistic predators.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Good for you in standing up to the judge, on occasion it happens, and the judge actually respects the law. All too often, the judge doesn't care that they are ignoring the law, the system is so completely stacked in their favor, it would literally take a an act of the state legislature to do anything about it.

You are absolutely right, a great deal of judicial actions are established by tricks, getting people to surrender their rights, forcing them into proceeding into traps designed specifically to rob them of their rights.

Attention should be paid to the reality, that calls for state rights, often evolve around the reality that local governments are always so much easier to manipulate. The speed trap is a classic example of how many of these small towns would screw people over, turning the local cop and judge into nothing but opportunistic predators.



Wait, so you believe what he is saying unequivocally, with no proof?? No pics, no court transcript, no nothing?

Well, I am an Ambassador from Neptune, and in our advanced society, there are rules and everyone follows them with love and respect. It is much nicer.
edit on 13-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

It is all about the circumstances and the individual, but the law cares nothing about these realities.

Plenty of people should never get behind the wheel of a Mustang and drive it on public roads. I see plenty of people out there driving, of all ages, who should not be driving because they can't handle a vehicle, don't have what it takes. Thus I applaud the Op.




You obviously didnt read my state statutes that I posted. It clearly defines that tractors and private property are not included. You missed have missed that part. Dont worry, it is still there.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


So you are saying it is alright to drive your private property on public roads without a license?

Nice of you to accede to the opinion of the op.

Or did you actually take the time to read what I posted?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You "showed" nothing at all, and all you've done is play transparent games that don't fool anyone. Both You and I have provided links to Section 509 of the New York Code, and were I to attempt to quote it in its entirety it couldn't be done in one single post, and I would only be doing so to appease a poster who has consistently made absurd arguments and relied so heavily upon logical fallacy that it has come to the point where I am reminded of a ancient Chinese axiom:



This is a classic JPZ post...all bluster and a flurry of words with no substance. Now you are claiming that you cant "quote it in its entirety" after it is clear that you cherry picked the parts you wanted, and left out plenty of what you didnt. And then, when I call you on it, it would be too much for you to do, to "appease" me and my "absurd" arguments.

So, if it opposite of what JPZ believes, it is absurd. Despite the fact that it is the law in every single state, with no successful challenge in court ever.

You are an ATS charlatan and I dont care how many disciples your ATS church has, you are a liar and you post a bunch of ignorant bullcrap. I think anyone with a brain can see this....

By the way, the quote you posted might be the smartest thing you posted here. You are right, you guys are just dragging me to your level. Keep spreading your lies and disinformation, it appears to be welcomed here. Deny ignorance indeed!



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


So you are saying it is alright to drive your private property on public roads without a license?

Nice of you to accede to the opinion of the op.

Or did you actually take the time to read what I posted?



I do...if you are on your own private property, and not using public roadways to let your 10 year old do laps, thats fine by me. Let him kill himself and damage YOUR property.

And no, I dont accede to the opinion of the OP. The OP opinion is that no one needs a license, ever.

My opinion is that if you want the right to drive a vehicle on a public roadway, you need to be accredited. The minute you become a danger to ME or MY property on the public roadway, you need to have a license.

No one is born with the right to drive; you are born with the right to travel. Use your feet.
edit on 13-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Well, I have known others who have beaten traffic tickets with their knowledge of the law, and have done so myself.

I have never met anyone credible who claimed they were "an Ambassador from Neptune".

There are those who know when to bend or break the rules. Rules are written to be broken.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Well, I have known others who have beaten traffic tickets with their knowledge of the law, and have done so myself.

I have never met anyone credible who claimed they were "an Ambassador from Neptune".

There are those who know when to bend or break the rules. Rules are written to be broken.



Im not saying beat some traffic laws like when the word "LIMIT" isnt used on a sign.

I am talking about what JPZ said he did, that he successfully argued that he does not need a license to drive a vehicle on a public roadway in a court of law.
edit on 13-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 



No one is born with the right to drive


The U.S. Constitution says differently.

I can use my hands and feet as I choose, and if I choose to operate a vehicle on public roads, it is my right, and if I do no harm to anyone, no one has the right to interfere with my progress through the day.

You have completely failed to provide reason why this is not true.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


JPZ wouldn't be the first to succeed in such a case, and won't be the last.

Do some research, educate theyself.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 



No one is born with the right to drive


The U.S. Constitution says differently.

I can use my hands and feet as I choose, and if I choose to operate a vehicle on public roads, it is my right, and if I do no harm to anyone, no one has the right to interfere with my progress through the day.

You have completely failed to provide reason why this is not true.





Really...can you point out the usage of the word "automobile" (or "motor carriage" perhaps) to me in the Constitution?

I have positively provided proof over and over. The fact is that you three just refuse to accept it. You have a fallacious argument.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


It is a commonly held opinion that all idiots are a danger to society.

Blindly following laws with out reason is, IMO, idiotic.









 
88
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join