What is everyone working on now that its cold and windy?

Don't you think it's time "We The People" did something about that sort of thing? Or do you view that as an acceptable state of affairs?

-dave w

"He cannot understand. Speak to him as you would a child."

- Galaxy Quest

In "plain English" where does it say anything about automobiles on a public roadway?

Excellent post, You hit the nail right on the head!

"Today's world"? What's so special about "today's world"? That sounds like the sort of line that apologists for despotism have undoubtedly been using for millenia...

-dave w

To Fred 2004 is "radically different" than 1799.

Funny thing.

It is to me too.

They had a lifestyle of rights in 1799, unlike 2004.

The rhetoric of 2004 implies we have rights indeed. The reality on the street is so far from that it is beyond scary. It is a full-on surrender of civil rights as defended in many wars.

Jerry

Soldiers are fully expendable."

- U.S. Army

Wallace: acceptable Teeling: acceptable

Well, you just said it right there in your own statement...

"legal" manner of travel

On a road, the "legal" manner of travel is that you have a driver's license, and to get a driver's license you have given implied consent.

If you want to argue that the government does not have the right to regulate such travel, then you would have to agree that they have no right to ANY such laws regarding driving (including DUI, reckless driving, speeding, whether a vehicle is safe, etc.).

BTW, that might be a valid position to hold -- but you've taken that argument away from yourself by your very acknowledgement of "legal manner of travel".

David Erbas-White

OK, OK, give it a rest.. :-)

I wouldn't be against this, if they actually took severe action against the DUI perpetrators. It would actually be worthwhile, and a positive cost/benefit ratio.

Heck, I'd drive around in circles to keep getting my $100 under those conditions...

Well, then I guess it's Darwinism in action. After all, if there are dozens of objects within your reach that are legal to take on a plane, yet all of the passengers were disarmed of all of these legal objects, then I guess they weren't too bright, were they (and before everybody reaches for their flame thrower, I'm being facetious).

You can't have it both ways. Either you can't take things on the plane to protect yourself (legally), or you can. And the same goes for the terrorists. Myself, I always try to take a legal item on the plane that I can use as a weapon if I need to, and I make sure I know where such items are, etc. I'm the only one responsible for my survival.

David Erbas-White

In theory you may be correct Ray, you can refuse the tests, you will just lose your licence..

I'm not aware of such tactics.... I'll take your word for it.

Fred

What about DWW? Or DWA? Or DWI? Or DWAI? Or DWM? Or DWM? And so many more I can't list them all.

Shouldn't civil rights apply to Everyone, equally, no matter who or what they are?

Do you have new information to share with us?

I said your mileage could vary..

Do you have new information to share with the group Jerry????

It's RMR and my constitutional right to choose..(:-)

Yep, all the Pu$$y's step forward with their weapons..

It's your constitutional right to that opinion..

Jeez!! You're living two decades farther in the past then jerry!

Your problem is obvious.

By the way, jerry put jerry in trouble, no one else. jerry knew full well he was in violation of state and federal laws. That's why he behaves the way he does.

His problem is REAL obvious.