OT: What are your thoughts on this?

[Swingman]

Rights are inalienable, not granted by the government, and not subject to being voted upon.

[Swingman]

Some folks never seem to grasp that elementary old axiom that two wrongs don't make a right ...

[Leon]

On 9/11/2012 1:48 AM, Just Wondering wrote

Snip

State Highway 130 in Texas, a new toll road, has a posted speed limit of

85mph.

[Dave]

I understand that's how they're perceived. But, those rights didn't just magically appear. They're words that someone wrote. They were proposed by men and developed by men, your congress and Thomas Jefferson. People in fact who were in a position of government. They were in fact created by your government. I think it's fair to suggest that if they hadn't been in government, those inalienable rights probably wouldn't have come into being.

You may not think they were granted, but that's as good a description as any for how they came into existence. Please understand, I'm not trying to attack your declaration of independence in any way shape or form.

[Leon]

But then there are those "God" given rights. ;~)

[dpb]

On 9/11/2012 7:55 AM, Swingman wrote: ...

"Right" and "practical" don't necessarily mix, either... :)

_IF_ the whoevers would prevent the pileup in front of the school by one means or another the "problem" would go away. As long as it is allowed to queue in a trafficway then it is never going to happen (and is unreasonable to expect) that thru traffic is going to wait for upwards of minutes while the line progresses.

Is that ideal? Of course not. Is it reality? Definitely and it's every bit or even more so that the wrong is being caused by the "stoppers" as opposed to the "goers".

Expecting otherwise is equivalent to expecting somebody following farmer John on his tractor for a couple of miles rather than going around when can just because there's some yellow paint on the road. It's more dangerous to cause the backup than going around when clear at a reasonable speed.

--

[dpb]

On 9/11/2012 7:41 AM, GarageWoodworks wrote: ...

I don't know who "he" is nor much care whether whoever that is agrees or not... :)

--bye, have a nice day obsessing. :)

--

[-MIKE-]

Youtube would probably be easier for all parties involved.

[-MIKE-]

Nice trolling. If he's obsessing, then what are you doing by continuing to reply to the off topic post?

[Swingman]

All nicely proving my point of that elementary old axiom that two wrongs don't make a right ... :)

[ChairMan]

True, but they carry some influence in who and what can be done. And would definitely be named in a lawsuit should anything ever happen They would be heard more so than Brian making a complaint to said entity

[ChairMan]

True, but it will probably take more than one death to get anything done.

[J. Clarke]

How long has this been going on and how many crashes have there been? If it's been going on for 30 years and there's never been even a fender- bender then government has more important things that it should be dealing with.

[J. Clarke]

>> I think the school has some responsibility and should get involved

If there was real risk of lawsuit in CT, the state would just put up a sign at each end "road legally closed".

[Swingman]

The "magic" words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." :)

You are correct in your suggestion.

The Declaration of Independence actually uses the term "unalienable":

"Unalienable": incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred."

"You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights."

There is a legal/philosophical difference:

"Inalienable rights": Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

"You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights."

You can argue it all the way back to at least Aristotle and "natural law" ...

[GarageWoodworks]

We only had one 9-11 and we have more important things to do so we shouldn't worry about it or prepare for another. Right?

[Just Wondering]

But three lefts do.

[J. Clarke]

How does that follow from what I said? There _has_ been a 9/11. Has there been a crash on this road?

[Markem]

But three lefts do! ;)

[ChairMan]

he's on first