Re: Driver Surcharge-Texas Transportation Code Ch.708

More | Report Post

On 10/04/08, the founding fathers wrote:
> On 8/17/05, M'sta Mikey wrote:
>> On 8/17/05, Ozarks Lawyer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet another case of someone getting cheddar instead of brie in
>>> the free-cheese line. Bring back the Post-It Notes, I say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To Mike :
>>
>> If you keep yourself out of trouble, don't drink and drive, don't
>> drive on a suspended license, etc., you have nothing to worry about!
>> Should that be the case, the law wouldn't pertain to you and is
>> therefore a non-issue.
>>
>> Case closed! NNNNNNNNNNNNNNEXT!
>
>
> To the author of "The rights of others or the non-issue rights"
> Mike, I belive
>
> Mike, As a victim of the Texas surcharge law, among others, Im
> offended that you would turn away from lending support to someone
> whos government is making a very non-comical joke out of the very
> documents that constitute its independence. The Bill of rights
spells
> out our most basic rights that We as Americans are BORN with, you do
> not have to earn those basic rights, as you aparently have. I can say
> though that picking away at the wording, or re-defining words within
> paragraphs, or even claiming that reguardless of the words written,
> that the framers of the sacred documents, meant something different
> than what they so carfully collaborated upon. You surely could care
> less since you didnt actually contribute to those documents, or
fight
> in Americas battle for independence, so nothing of yours has been
> lost. I may be wrong about this but, Mike, You wouldnt happen to be
a
> cop now would you? If not theyd probably hire you, due to your
> unbridled conformity, and dedication to whatever theyd like you
> dedicated to.
> The problem, outside of that silly little unconstitutionality issue,
> is out of concern for you Mike, because if you stand by and let them
> ban cigarettes, cause you dont smoke, or force good drivers to buy
> auto insurance, because your reckless and think that if the
> government requires it that it must be something you could never
live
> without, then excercise your hatrack on this. Youve allowed a legal
> precedent to occur. You didnt complain the first 5 times they
> deflowered the bill of rights, that means that you have no problem
> with that, so now its your turn. theyve just passed a law forbiding
> any and all sissies named Nancy from wearing pink lacey panties
while
> in their cruiser or on duty. Worst of all for you theyve redfined
the
> spelling of Nancy as follows: M I K E
>
> Is it really OK to make poverty a crime becase you dont live in
> poverty