It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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)
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)
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.
Driving a tractor on a farm field is quite different than driving a mustang at 55 on the public roads.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
No one is born with the right to drive
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.