Driver Licensing, Driving and Locomotion

"¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
> "proffsl" > wrote in message
>
> > You can not be rightfully required to obtain a Driver License
> > before Driving, as Driving is a part of your Right of Locomotion.
>
> When you going to exercise your Right of Cogitation ?

You contribute nothing but beligerance.



> > Read why
> > he
>
> >http://proffsl.110mb.com/locomotion.php
>
> >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php
>
> >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

proffsl wrote:
> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
>> "proffsl" > wrote in message
>>
>>> You can not be rightfully required to obtain a Driver License
>>> before Driving, as Driving is a part of your Right of Locomotion.
>>
>> When you going to exercise your Right of Cogitation ?
>
> You contribute nothing but beligerance.

Again you use words you fail to comprehend.

"_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
> >> "proffsl" > wrote in message
>
> >>> You can not be rightfully required to obtain a Driver License
> >>> before Driving, as Driving is a part of your Right of Locomotion.
>
> >> When you going to exercise your Right of Cogitation ?
>
> > You contribute nothing but beligerance.
>
> Again you use words you fail to comprehend.

More beligerance. Instead of making hollow accusations, why don't you
elaborate? Or, is there really anything to elaborate on, but instead
only your desires to post beligerantly. It is the latter which I
believe to be the case.

proffsl wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
>> proffsl wrote:
>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
>>>> "proffsl" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>> You can not be rightfully required to obtain a Driver License
>>>>> before Driving, as Driving is a part of your Right of Locomotion.
>>
>>>> When you going to exercise your Right of Cogitation ?
>>
>>> You contribute nothing but beligerance.
>>
>> Again you use words you fail to comprehend.
>
> More beligerance.

Ah yes, more ignorance of common English word meanings.

> Instead of making hollow accusations, why don't you
> elaborate? Or, is there really anything to elaborate on, but instead
> only your desires to post beligerantly. It is the latter which I
> believe to be the case.

It ain't the only belief that you hold that's 100% incorrect.

"_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> proffsl wrote:

> > Instead of making hollow accusations, why don't you
> > elaborate? Or, is there really anything to elaborate on, but instead
> > only your desires to post beligerantly. It is the latter which I
> > believe to be the case.
>
> It ain't the only belief that you hold that's 100% incorrect.

More hollow accusations, with no substance.

proffsl wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
>> proffsl wrote:
>
>>> Instead of making hollow accusations, why don't you
>>> elaborate? Or, is there really anything to elaborate on, but
>>> instead only your desires to post beligerantly. It is the latter
>>> which I believe to be the case.
>>
>> It ain't the only belief that you hold that's 100% incorrect.
>
> More hollow accusations, with no substance.

Like your silly assertions of some phantom "Right of Locomotion" ...
ROTFLMAO!

"_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> >> proffsl wrote:
>
> >>> Instead of making hollow accusations, why don't you
> >>> elaborate? Or, is there really anything to elaborate on, but
> >>> instead only your desires to post beligerantly. It is the latter
> >>> which I believe to be the case.
>
> >> It ain't the only belief that you hold that's 100% incorrect.
>
> > More hollow accusations, with no substance.
>
> Like your silly assertions of some phantom "Right of Locomotion" ...

If I resort to showing you the court case from the 1900's recognizing
just that Right, then it will be preceived that I am giving validity
to the lies of today's courts who are in violation of that Right.

If I resort to showing you where that court stated that: We do indeed
have the Right of Locomotion, but this court fails to see where a
particular tax abridges that Right and therefore rules against the
plantif,,,,, you'll disnigeniously play to ignorance and claim that
denies the very thing they acknowledge.

In short, You're a Rude Moron.

proffsl wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
>> proffsl wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
>>>> proffsl wrote:
>>
>>>>> Instead of making hollow accusations, why don't you
>>>>> elaborate? Or, is there really anything to elaborate on, but
>>>>> instead only your desires to post beligerantly. It is the latter
>>>>> which I believe to be the case.
>>
>>>> It ain't the only belief that you hold that's 100% incorrect.
>>
>>> More hollow accusations, with no substance.
>>
>> Like your silly assertions of some phantom "Right of Locomotion" ...
>
> If I resort to showing you the court case from the 1900's recognizing
> just that Right, then it will be preceived that I am giving validity
> to the lies of today's courts who are in violation of that Right.

Care to rephrase that in coherent English ?

>
> If I resort to showing you where that court stated that: We do indeed
> have the Right of Locomotion,

And you Shepardized this singular court case up to and including 2007,
and it still holds,. eh?

>but this court fails to see where a
> particular tax abridges that Right and therefore rules against the
> plantif,,,,, you'll disnigeniously play to ignorance and claim that
> denies the very thing they acknowledge.
>
> In short, You're a Rude Moron.

Or more likely, you're an ignorant jackass.