# Anyone here relate to this guy?



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

BENNINGTON — A Dorset man, who told the court he does not recognize the right of the state to require a driver's license, was arraigned on Monday after police said he hit a Manchester Police officer with his car while trying to escape a traffic stop.

. . . 

During a court hearing, Armstrong referred to himself as a "sovereign citizen" and asked the Bennington County State's Attorney's office to produce any contract between himself and the state of Vermont.

In what he called a petition to the government for a redress of grievances, Armstrong said he did "not consent to any hearing or any assumed jurisdiction of this court" and explained why he did not believe he needed a driver's license.

"Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The concept is that if I am coerced or forced to pay for a privilege granted by public servants, I am not of a free people as a sovereign citizen of the United States of America," Armstrong wrote.

To read more:


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Vermont sure is a strange place!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Vermont sure is a strange place!


No argument here. Although this is really the first time we've seen something like this that I can recall, which is why it's newsworthy. This kind of thing seems to be more common in places like Idaho. If you read the whole article you see that it has some of the same elements, including the guy insisting on a particular wacky spelling of his name.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Just another one of the crazy kooks who constantly assert that the State or Federal Government has no right to exert any authority over them, whether it be taxes, Driver licenses, or whatever.

Cruiser


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

The federal government does not have a "right" to anything. We as the people consent to award the government certain powers. This is one that we have as a people agreed to grant the government. People have rights, not governments.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Just another one of the crazy kooks who constantly assert that the State or Federal Government has no right to exert any authority over them, whether it be taxes, Driver licenses, or whatever.
> 
> Cruiser


They seem to congregate among the anti-tax nuts. Google the phrase "idiot legal arguments" and you'll find a web page devoted to the spurious arguments some of these people have used.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Ticket/Taxes*

Gentlemen

I relate to this man, he is my Uncle. And we should not pay taxes either!

Nice day my friends


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

He's lucky he only got the pepper spray. These days, what with massive grants for military training and DOD equipment provided to local constabularies via the US Department of Fatherland Security, thereby nationalizing and militarizing local peace officers, the more common mode of control is the ubiquitous high-powered electric cattle prod.

Some people just need more love from the State to learn who's boss.



> Steere said he had his leg, which hurt and became discolored, checked out by the Manchester Rescue Squad.


Oh, my goodness!

I experienced the same thing just yesterday. Some criminal in my office left the door of a filing cabinet open, obstructing the path between me and the vending machine. My thigh now "hurts" and is "discolored."


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

I agree with PJ O'Rourke, who said that giving money and power to Congress was like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Still as long as they control the gulags and the state security storm troopers, it would probably be best to follow their rules, and in so doing, try to show just how irrational, assinine and counter-productive those rules have become. Personally, I believe that the Republicans and the Democrats having been waging a war on our liberties for about 120 years.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Did you have yourself checked out by the rescue squad??


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I had my _trousers_ checked out by a "rescue tailor." It's all about priorities.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Hmmm...reminds me of the Muslim woman who was denied a drivers licence because she refused to uncover her face for the photo. Of course she sued but I never heard of what the outcome was.


----------



## Droog (Aug 29, 2006)

Phinn said:


> He's lucky he only got the pepper spray. These days, what with massive grants for military training and DOD equipment provided to local constabularies via the US Department of Fatherland Security, thereby nationalizing and militarizing local peace officers, the more common mode of control is the ubiquitous high-powered electric cattle prod.


While assigned to Department of the Army, The Pentagon, my job was to coordinate military support to the civil sector, including police. This was quite routine. Military support to law enforcement has always been a normal feature of Federal operations. This even includes indirect military participation in law enforcement operations, although strictly controlled under _posse comitatus_.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Military support to law enforcement has always been a normal feature of Federal operations. This even includes indirect military participation in law enforcement operations, although strictly controlled under posse comitatus.


I refer you to an essay (dating from the tail end of the Clinton administration), appearing on the website of the Homeland Security Institute, which describes itself as "a Studies and Analysis Federally Funded Research and Development Center established pursuant to Section 312 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002." It is entitled, _The Myth of Posse Comitatus_, by Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve.



> What legal bar does the Posse Comitatus Act present today to using the military to prevent or respond to a biological or chemical attack on the soil of the United States? In view of the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act in the past 20 years, the answer is "not much."
> 
> The erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act through Congressional legislation and executive policy has left a hollow shell in place of a law that formerly was a real limitation on the military's role in civilian law enforcement and security issues. The plethora of constitutional and statutory exceptions to the act provides the executive branch with a menu of options under which it can justify the use of military forces to combat domestic terrorism. Whether an act of terrorism is classified as a civil disturbance under 10 U.S.C., 331-334, or whether the president relies upon constitutional power to preserve federal functions, it is difficult to think of a domestic terrorism scenario of sizable scale under which the use of the military could not be lawfully justified in view of the act's erosion. The act is no longer a realistic bar to direct military involvement in counterterrorism planning and operations. *It is a low legal hurdle that can be easily cleared through invocation of the appropriate legal justification, either before or after the fact.*


Although I had not heard the term "homeland" outside of movies about Nazis, apparently Maj. Trebilcock had, and the Army was apparently quite comfortable with its use for some time before Sept. 11, 2001.

I suppose it's kinda funny to point and laugh at the kook in Vermont who breaks out the sovereignty defense for a traffic ticket, but perhaps its less funny when the Midland County Sheriff's Office rolls out an armored personnel carrier supplied by the Pentagon (still bearing the "kill marks" on the side wall of the vehicle, presumably representing some dead people in Iraq or Afghanistan) to seize 400 children, breaking the bones of two of them in the process.










And it got less funny when when the Texas courts of appeal later ruled "The department [of Child Protective Services] did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health and safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty," and that the "removal of the children was not warranted."

Of course, these kinds of tactics in what I used to call "the United States of America" are not exclusive to the era of the Department of Heimat Security.










If a traffic ticket is not enough to prompt you to start thinking about the principles of legitimacy of force and authority, I suspect that it's a distinct possibility that some agency of the US government will give a great many more of us the opportunity, at some point in our lives, to focus our attention to these questions.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

When we look at the Bill Of Rights and how it came about I would say the guy is right - The Government does not have the right to tell us what we can and can not do, such as driving.

Out in farming country where kids work you will see children driving farm equipment, and even in some states 12 year olds driveing cars. What city people don't understand is that you can not rely upon other people, much more, government. Which explains why Democrats are not popular among the rural population. Because, all Democrats think about is you need to hold governments hands all the time, and this is the way Democrats write their laws. The idea of self reliance is a foreign thought to Democrats. City people have no idea what there minds and bodies can do under the rigtht guidance. I love seeing 8-9 year old Children on a tractor driving down the road with two full hay wagons and others guys and gals sitting on the wagons having a good time. I get tired of Democrats belittleing people all the time. City kids are loosers in some ways because they have never been given a chance.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> When we look at the Bill Of Rights and how it came about I would say the guy is right - The Government does not have the right to tell us what we can and can not do, such as driving.


I assume I'll regret this, but here goes:

Can you point me to the provision of the Bill of Rights (or its penumbras and emanations)that covers driving a motor vehicle on public roads without a driver's license?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I assume I'll regret this, but here goes:
> 
> Can you point me to the provision of the Bill of Rights (or its penumbras and emanations)that covers driving a motor vehicle on public roads without a driver's license?


*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> When we look at the Bill Of Rights and how it came about I would say the guy is right - The Government does not have the right to tell us what we can and can not do, such as driving.
> 
> Out in farming country where kids work you will see children driving farm equipment, and even *in some states 12 year olds driveing cars*. What city people don't understand is that you can not rely upon other people, much more, government. Which explains why Democrats are not popular among the rural population. Because, all Democrats think about is you need to hold governments hands all the time, and this is the way Democrats write their laws. The idea of self reliance is a foreign thought to Democrats. City people have no idea what there minds and bodies can do under the rigtht guidance. I love seeing 8-9 year old Children on a tractor driving down the road with two full hay wagons and others guys and gals sitting on the wagons having a good time. I get tired of Democrats belittleing people all the time. City kids are loosers in some ways because they have never been given a chance.


I know you vet your sources with great rigor, so I am certain you can tell us in which state twelve-year-olds are permitted to drive. I was under the impression that the youngest full license age in the country is 15 years...okay, fourteen in North Dakota...and the youngest learners' permits are granted at fourteen years of age. However, I am ready to be proven wrong.

Buzz


----------



## Victor123 (Jun 18, 2008)

agnash said:


> I agree with PJ O'Rourke, who said that giving money and power to Congress was like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Still as long as they control the gulags and the state security storm troopers, it would probably be best to follow their rules, and in so doing, try to show just how irrational, assinine and counter-productive those rules have become. Personally, I believe that the Republicans and the Democrats having been waging a war on our liberties for about 120 years.


Amen


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*


Since this is a limitation on the power of the federal government, how does it limit the police power of the state to regulate its own highways?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

agnash said:


> I agree with PJ O'Rourke, who said that *giving money and power to Congress was like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.* Still as long as they control the gulags and the state security storm troopers, it would probably be best to follow their rules, and in so doing, try to show just how irrational, assinine and counter-productive those rules have become. Personally, I believe that the Republicans and the Democrats having been waging a war on our liberties for about 120 years.





WA said:


> When we look at the Bill Of Rights and how it came about I would say the guy is right - The Government does not have the right to tell us what we can and can not do, such as driving.
> 
> Out in farming country where kids work you will see children driving farm equipment, *and even in some states 12 year olds driveing cars*.


I suggest that the right wing Yahoos get together and align their orthodoxy.

Buzz


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I know you vet your sources with great rigor, so I am certain you can tell us in which state twelve-year-olds are permitted to drive. I was under the impression that trhe youngest full license age in the country is 15 years...okay, fourteen in North Dakota...and the youngest learners' permits are granted at fourteen years of age. However, I am ready to be proven wrong.


You do not need a license to drive on private property. (Yet.) The State only licenses the operation of vehicles on the State's roads.

Although, now that you mention it, the State claims of ownership of all the roads, too. And, through its "land use" regulation, it claims the power to unilaterally declare where all roads will be built, and where all the buildings and businesses will be operated, thus requiring people to live and work in places that require people to own cars to make a living. Which, in the end, means that the State has the ability to stop, detain, inspect and control just about everyone several times per day, unless you want to live entirely within the confines of your house.

Now that the government owns the mortgage industry, I suppose they will start to assert an ever-increasing power to control everything that goes on in a federally-mortgaged house as well.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Phinn said:


> You do not need a license to drive on private property. (Yet.) The State only licenses the operation of vehicles on the State's roads.
> 
> Although, now that you mention it, the State claims of ownership of all the roads, too. And, through its "land use" regulation, it claims the power to unilaterally declare where all roads will be built, and where all the buildings and businesses will be operated, thus requiring people to live and work in places that require people to own cars to make a living. Which, in the end, means that the State has the ability to stop, detain, inspect and control just about everyone several times per day, unless you want to live entirely within the confines of your house.
> 
> Now that the government owns the mortgage industry, I suppose they will start to assert an ever-increasing power to control everything that goes on in a federally-mortgaged house as well.


Oh, come on, Phinn, I simply asked dear WA to tell us in which state or states twelve-year-olds can drive.

Buzz


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> I suggest that the right wing Yahoos get together and align their orthodoxy.
> 
> Buzz


I don't mind being grouped with the Yahoos, but I do object to being grouped with Yahoos of either the right or left wing. I believe my posts have well established my disdain and disgust with any and all criminals, I mean politicians. :icon_smile:


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Also, most licensed Americans suck at drivin*

The further sham of driver's licenses is that they are used and suspended for matters that have nothing to do with motor vehicle operation.

The DL is _the_ photo identification card required for all kinds of silly irrelevant stuff - like buying certain OTC medications (at least in NJ). And you can get your license to operate a motor vehicle (and hence survive outside a dense city) suspended for being late with your child support payments.

The founding fathers would surely see the tyranny in this overassumption of power. We are too jaded.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Since this is a limitation on the power of the federal government, how does it limit the police power of the state to regulate its own highways?


What about using the so-called "spending clause" to compel states to regulate the highways in ways acceptable to Congress?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

It's a shame that the states are so addicted to the federal tit.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's tough not to be addicted to federal money when the feds take so much of it out of the states.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Yes, absolutely! That's the intent, of course. They have the money (your money) and you dance to their tune if you want some of it back. 

If (heaven forbid) Obama gets in, the fed's power over us will grow exponentially. It's impossible to deny this.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Since this is a limitation on the power of the federal government, how does it limit the police power of the state to regulate its own highways?


You didn't ask that originally. You asked someone to point to the provision of the Bill of Rights (or its penumbras and emanations)that covers driving a motor vehicle on public roads without a driver's license.

The 10th Amendment leaves powers not given to the federal government to the states. So it answers your question. The federal government took the power to regulate highways- national speed limits are an example- from the expressed power to maintain post roads (Art 1, Sec 8). So, whether the power should be left to the states or the people themselves is up in the air, presumably to be decided on a state by state basis.

My basic belief is that both the state and federal government should have as little powers as possible. That people should not automatically grant the government any power that they want. Again, rights are not granted by government, they are ours by virtue of both. We grant power to the government, not the other way around.


----------



## TweedyDon (Aug 31, 2007)

"Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The concept is that if I am coerced or forced to pay for a privilege granted by public servants, I am not of a free people as a sovereign citizen of the United States of America," 

I'm not sure what the last clause means, but I don't see what--morally, not legally--is wrong with the rest of this.

That's not to say that this particular chap isn't a kook, of course! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> It's a shame that the states are so addicted to the federal tit.


...and no state is more addicted to federal funds than...get this...ALASKA! Just ask the governor of Alaska.

Buzz


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

If you are talking about pork barrel spending and it makes you feel better to brag that Illinois only took $323M while Alaska got $380M, then more power to you. Enjoy the hollow "victory".

I'm against pork whether requested by Democrats, Republicans, and any other party. The federal budget contains $17.1 billion in pork for 2008.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's a lot more than 17 billion in pork, trust me. You mean 17 billion in _earmarked_ pork, a tiny fraction of the useless, wasteful spending undertaken by the federal government.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

https://alaskaneconomy.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/FedSpendSum.pdf

This information isn't up to date, these figures only cover to 2002, but I imagine the basic set up hasn't changed that much in recent years.

41% of the money that goes to Alaska goes to individuals. These payments would be made regardless of who is in charge of the state government or what party they belong to. A good chunk of the money goes to social security and medicare payments- apparently Alaska has an aged population. A large portion of the payments goes to Native Americans. 20% of Alaska's population is Native American, and therefore entitled to federal funded programs, especially health care programs which are costly.

Part of the spending also goes to maintaining the 240 million acres of land owned by the federal government in Alaska (almost half the size of the Louisiana Purchase).

Because of the proximity to Russia there are several military bases in Alaska and that accounts for a portion of the spending.

Another major factor in federal spending in Alaska is spending on road construction, which pretty much every state benefitted from from the beginning of the Eisenhower interstate program in the 1950s. Because Alaska joined the US late and was only very sparsely populated, there hasn't been much in the way of road construction until recently.

I am sure there is wasteful spending in Alaska, I am sure that there are things that can be cut, but keep in mind that almost half of the federal money paid to Alaska goes to individuals for health care and payments to Native Americans.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

PT, 
Yes, I believe 'measurable' earmarks by state are what m6 was referring to, and it was that to which I responded. Sorry if I wasn't clear.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I assume I'll regret this, but here goes:
> 
> Can you point me to the provision of the Bill of Rights (or its penumbras and emanations)that covers driving a motor vehicle on public roads without a driver's license?


Not everything was written in laws. When you look at the question of the Bill Of Rights even being possible, that should answer your question. This is history you should read.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> I know you vet your sources with great rigor, so I am certain you can tell us in which state twelve-year-olds are permitted to drive. I was under the impression that the youngest full license age in the country is 15 years...okay, fourteen in North Dakota...and the youngest learners' permits are granted at fourteen years of age. However, I am ready to be proven wrong.
> 
> Buzz


In this State, Washington, farming laws rule over drivers licence laws. As far as underage driving to a farm to work I doubt that is allowable, but on the job you will see children legally operating farm equiment on the roads, which can include pickups and maybe cars.

As far as children being licenced to drive at 12 with a drivers licence I know of no State, but that does not mean that Law Enforcement will prevent underaged from driving. One person I worked with when he was 12 he drove 3-5 times a week and Law Enforcement never bothered him, they talk to him a few times, but never stopped him from driving. Another person I worked with drove over a thousand miles to his parents place when he was 14 or 15 and when pulled over they said "you have done fine this far and seem to know what you are doing, so I'll let you continue on." I believe Montana use to have a legal system for 12 year olds to drive cars about 30 years ago. My old baby sitter who became a friend would let me drive her 57 Chev when I was 12 and I drove then better than some 16-20 year olds with licences. I have a picture (slide) of my brother driving granddads tractor in the field when he was 7 or 8, and the year before that he drove it out in the same hay field. I was so disappointed when they sold that place before I got to drive the tractor (John Deere). Out in the country where help is not always available kids need to know how to drive if there is an emergency.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> If you are talking about pork barrel spending and it makes you feel better to brag that Illinois only took $323M while Alaska got $380M, then more power to you. Enjoy the hollow "victory".
> 
> I'm against pork whether requested by Democrats, Republicans, and any other party. The federal budget contains $17.1 billion in pork for 2008.


Okay, then, Relayer, here's a quiz I think even you can pass. The population of Alaska is? The population of Illinois is?

I hope that someday you, too, get to drink from the cask of victory, the taste is aweet.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> In this State, Washington, farming laws rule over drivers licence laws. As far as underage driving to a farm to work I doubt that is allowable, but on the job you will see children legally operating farm equiment on the roads, which can include pickups and maybe cars.
> 
> As far as children being licenced to drive at 12 with a drivers licence I know of no State, but that does not mean that Law Enforcement will prevent underaged from driving. One person I worked with when he was 12 he drove 3-5 times a week and Law Enforcement never bothered him, they talk to him a few times, but never stopped him from driving. Another person I worked with drove over a thousand miles to his parents place when he was 14 or 15 and when pulled over they said "you have done fine this far and seem to know what you are doing, so I'll let you continue on." I believe Montana use to have a legal system for 12 year olds to drive cars about 30 years ago. My old baby sitter who became a friend would let me drive her 57 Chev when I was 12 and I drove then better than some 16-20 year olds with licences. I have a picture (slide) of my brother driving granddads tractor in the field when he was 7 or 8, and the year before that he drove it out in the same hay field. I was so disappointed when they sold that place before I got to drive the tractor (John Deere). Out in the country where help is not always available kids need to know how to drive if there is an emergency.


I love your desperate rationalizations, WA, I just_ ell-oh-vee-eee_, LOVE them. Such pathos

Buzz


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I'll bet he was originally from New Hampshire.. :icon_smile_wink:

I can identify to a certain extent. I don't mind the state governing who can drive since it protects me from unqualified drivers. However, I have noticed a creeping omnipresence of the state in the past 10 years (curiously, about the time I left New Hampshire) into areas where I think their presence is a stretch. 

I probably don't agree with this guy on this issue, but in general terms, we are becoming very much over-governed,  almost to the extent that Washington, Franklin and the rest would probably not recognize the country they helped found.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> I am sure there is wasteful spending in Alaska, I am sure that there are things that can be cut, but keep in mind that almost half of the federal money paid to Alaska goes to individuals for health care and payments to Native Americans.


Which is what right-wing tax ranters..._and you know who you are_...might call income redistrubution, a transfer of wealth, or grand larceny by your federal government...unless they were desperate to defend someone's hypocrisy.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Which is what right-wing tax ranters..._and you know who you are_...might call income redistrubution, a transfer of wealth, or grand larceny by your federal government...unless they were desperate to defend someone's hypocrisy.
> 
> Buzz


I don't think "tax ranters" are defending anything. These are long standing US policies and have nothing to do with the political agenda of any current politician. Your insinuation in your original post on this subject was that Alaska got a great deal of federal money, and you insuated that the governor of Alaska had something to do with it. Ok, I guess she has something to do with some of the spending, but 41% of it goes directly to individuals for programs like Social Security (started in the 1930s) and medicare and medicaid (started in the 1960s) and to Native Americans (I assume from some treaty deal ages ago). So unless people are trying to defend FDR or LBJ I don't see that anyone is defending anyone's hypocrisy.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> I don't think "tax ranters" are defending anything. These are long standing US policies and have nothing to do with the political agenda of any current politician. Your insinuation in your original post on this subject was that Alaska got a great deal of federal money, and you insuated that the governor of Alaska had something to do with it. Ok, I guess she has something to do with some of the spending, but 41% of it goes directly to individuals for programs like Social Security (started in the 1930s) and medicare and medicaid (started in the 1960s) and to Native Americans (I assume from some treaty deal ages ago). So unless people are trying to defend FDR or LBJ I don't see that anyone is defending anyone's hypocrisy.


Oh, please. Go look at the messages from such oh-so-enlightened people as Our DearTurkey and Wa of Great Pathos.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Oh, please. Go look at the messages from such oh-so-enlightened people as Our DearTurkey and Wa of Great Pathos.
> 
> Buzz


Ok, and again I'll say that nobody on this thread is defending anyone in particular. WA seems to be talking about 12 year olds driving. Turkey basically said that its hard not to be addicted to federal money when the government takes so much out of states. Relayer argued that Illinois got about as much money as Alaska. Or is this just an excuse for you to make personal attacks on people?

To address your response about the population of Illinois vs. Alaska, Illinois population is about 12x the size of Alaska. But it has a very small Native American population, in Alaska nearly a quarter of the population is Native American. Also, a major part of the funding that Alaska receives is for the building of roads- a very expensive prospect in cold, remote areas between the major cities. EVERY U.S. state has recieved Federal highway money over the years. Alaska has really only started building major highways in recent years, whereas Illinois and every other states have been getting highway money for decades. If you compared the two, I am sure that Illinois has gotten much more money over the years than Alaska for this, and probably every other state as well.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Ok, and again I'll say that nobody on this thread is defending anyone in particular. WA seems to be talking about 12 year olds driving. Turkey basically said that its hard not to be addicted to federal money when the government takes so much out of states. Relayer argued that Illinois got about as much money as Alaska. Or is this just an excuse for you to make personal attacks on people?
> 
> To address your response about the population of Illinois vs. Alaska, Illinois population is about 12x the size of Alaska. But it has a very small Native American population, in Alaska nearly a quarter of the population is Native American. Also, a major part of the funding that Alaska receives is for the building of roads- a very expensive prospect in cold, remote areas between the major cities. EVERY U.S. state has recieved Federal highway money over the years. Alaska has really only started building major highways in recent years, whereas Illinois and every other states have been getting highway money for decades. If you compared the two, I am sure that Illinois has gotten much more money over the years than Alaska for this, and probably every other state as well.


I am not in disagreement with _you_, Terpoxon, my disagreement is with the several people on this list who consider all taxes confiscatory at least and probably unconstitutional (how about a show of hands Dear Turkey, Wa of Great Pathos, and you other anti-tax ranters?). Nota bene that I asked _Relayer_ the questions about the populations of Alaska and Illinois. I happen to think that your analysis quoted above is by and large correct, Terpoxon.

Buzz


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Okay, then, Relayer, here's a quiz I think even you can pass. The population of Alaska is? The population of Illinois is?
> 
> I hope that someday you, too, get to drink from the cask of victory, the taste is aweet.
> 
> Buzz


Again, enjoy your hollow victory. Divide, multiply, cipher any way that makes you feel good. A $327m million is $327M million no matter how you parse it. Both states should get $0 in pork.

Bottom line is how much money is doled out of the American federal pocketbook.

Take out all of Alaska's and Illinois' pork, and you still have only many billions fleeced from Americans.

If that is sweet wine to you, you are welcome to it.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> Again, enjoy your hollow victory. Divide, multiply, cipher any way that makes you feel good. A $327m million is $327M million no matter how you parse it. Both states should get $0 in pork.
> 
> Bottom line is how much money is doled out of the American federal pocketbook.
> 
> ...


See what I mean, Terpoxon? Wind him up and he rants and raves like a Middle Ages Messiah.

Yes, Relayer, and thank you very much! I will drink long and deep the wine of victory, but not, of course, when I will be driving or operating heavy equipment.

Buzz


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

M6,

At the awful risk of your proclaiming further evidence of my being all torn up by this thread... 

Wound up - May I point out that I have made 5 prior posts in this thread, while you have 10.

Rant and rave - Please define what makes a post a rant and/or rave (and give that test to you posts as well as mine). (The Middle Age Messiah bit I don't understand at all, but it does sound very dark and foreboding, so I guess that's all that matters). 

I just don't see these elements at all in my posts.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Well, I happen to agree with a lot of what he is saying, if not the tone of it. Wasteful spending should be curtailed, redistribution of wealth should be limited. 

In the current system, however, it is essentially a disadvantage for any politician not to engage in pork barreling. If you don't any everyone around you does, then the problem exists and other politicians have something to show for it, and you don't. 

The problem is in the fact that a) most Americans want more government services but don't want to pay higher taxes and b) we are slowly (not even slowly anymore) going bankrupt.

The current federal deficit is $9 trillion. (That's just what the government admits to, the actual figure is more like $20-30.) The government has not run at a surplus since 1969 (the Clinton surplus was a hollow smoke and mirrors kind of thing. It was a projected surplus, not a real one, i.e. at no point did the government actually take in more than it spent.) The surplus in 1969 was $3 billion. So, do the math. IF we ran at a surplus of $3 billion (which we haven't done for 40 years) it would still take centuries to actually pay down the debt.

Continuing a policy of reckless spending is just not tenable. Eventually the margin call comes, and when it happens we will be in a load of trouble.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> M6,
> 
> At the awful risk of your proclaiming further evidence of my being all torn up by this thread...
> 
> ...


Sweet, gentle Relayer...it is not the number of one's posts, but their content. If you are unaware of the messianic movement of Middle Ages Europe, you might want to hit the books and learn something. Suffice it to say that every village seemed to have its own Messiah who would set up in the sqaure and spout about prophecies fulfilled and doom ordained. Otherwise you would do well to simply ignore me, I would be grateful, not offended.

Buzz


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Sweet, gentle Relayer...it is not the number of one's posts, but their content. If you are unaware of the messianic movement of Middle Ages Europe, you might want to hit the books and learn something. Suffice it to say that every village seemed to have its own Messiah who would set up in the sqaure and spout about prophecies fulfilled and doom ordained. Otherwise you would do well to simply ignore me, I would be grateful, not offended.
> 
> Buzz


Ok. In other words, "you got nothing".

Don't be offended, but I think I will continue to respond to various posts that I agree and/or disagree with. When you have no better answer than insults or ominous visions of messianic movements, that's your problem.

If you cannot handle simple challenges to your point of view, the ignore option is there for you. I won't be offended. Otherwise, carry on.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> Ok. In other words, "you got nothing".
> 
> Don't be offended, but I think I will continue to respond to various posts that I agree and/or disagree with. When you have no better answer than insults or ominous visions of messianic movements, that's your problem.
> 
> If you cannot handle simple challenges to your point of view, the ignore option is there for you. I won't be offended. Otherwise, carry on.


Wait just a darn second! _Nothing_!?!? What do you mean nothing? Why, I've got the cask of victory from which to drink, you said so yourself!

Buzz


----------



## Droog (Aug 29, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I suppose it's kinda funny to point and laugh at the kook in Vermont who breaks out the sovereignty defense for a traffic ticket, but perhaps its less funny when the Midland County Sheriff's Office rolls out an armored personnel carrier supplied by the Pentagon (still bearing the "kill marks" on the side wall of the vehicle, presumably representing some dead people in Iraq or Afghanistan) to seize 400 children, breaking the bones of two of them in the process.


As I stated before, DoD routinely lends equipment to civilian law enforcement on specified terms. These terms pertain to accountability, maintenance, time period, etc. The operational use of the vehicle is up to civilian law enforcement, not the military. These vehicles can even be purchased. To conflate a military vehicle with military participation in law enforcement is nonsensical.

The so-called "kill marks" pictured are obviously not so. The paint job on the M113 is not a military camouflage pattern or color, past or present. The trim vane on the front of the vehicle has been removed, and the military markings on the vehicle (always in black) have been painted over. Also, the rectangular rubber flotation device above the road wheels has been painted (you can tell by the black scuff), which Army folks wouldn't ordinarily do. The so-called "kill mark" was obviously painted over top the sherrif's paint job and represents who knows what. Lastly, units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan don't bring their equipment (except for Stryker brigades, which don't have M113s); rather, they sign for their equipment when they arrive and sign it back when they leave (it's cheaper this way). Those markings therefore did not come from the Southwest Asia theater of operations.

In short, those are not _Army_ "kill marks."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> I suggest that the right wing Yahoos get together and align their orthodoxy.
> 
> Buzz


It is hard to write to somebody, such as you, who believes your politcal party spin. What is spin? Well, it is hot air or a lie, isn't it? The left has spin about what they are, and you believe it. And, of course, they have spin about the right is, and you believe that, too. You ought to step out on your own and do your own thinking to find out what both sides really are. Since this will take 4 to 10 years I'm sure you will never believe anything different than the spin of the left. If you really knew both sides, aside from the spins, we could have an honest conversation.

One good thing about yahoos- at least they do their own thinking. Whereas, you, have you ever wrote anything here without your hand being held? Not suppose to have your hand held when you vote - because it is anti-democracy because, that way a few vote for millions (to understand this last sentence you have to be a thinker, so you'll never understand it, will you?). It is not right when somebody else vote for you by using you.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> It is hard to write to somebody, such as you, who believes your politcal party spin. What is spin? Well, it is hot air or a lie, isn't it? The left has spin about what they are, and you believe it. And, of course, they have spin about the right is, and you believe that, too. You ought to step out on your own and do your own thinking to find out what both sides really are. Since this will take 4 to 10 years I'm sure you will never believe anything different than the spin of the left. If you really knew both sides, aside from the spins, we could have an honest conversation.
> 
> One good thing about yahoos- at least they do their own thinking. Whereas, you, have you ever wrote anything here without your hand being held? Not suppose to have your hand held when you vote - because it is anti-democracy because, that way a few vote for millions (to understand this last sentence you have to be a thinker, so you'll never understand it, will you?). It is not right when somebody else vote for you by using you.


Now that's a mature and well thought-out rejoinder! You may think I let the left do my spinning for me, but I actually prefer a small mill in the Hebrides, thank you very much!

Yes, I am a thinker, our dear, sweet marginally literate Wa, but before anyone can understand your gibberish, you would have to become a writer and I fear it is a tad too late for that. There are several thoughtful and expressive thinkers on the right who inhabit this list and you should learn from them.

By the way, it would be a good idea for you to read the source regarding the Yahoos.

Buzz


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Now that's a mature and well thought-out rejoinder! You may think I let the left do my spinning for me, but I actually prefer a small mill in the Hebrides, thank you very much!
> 
> Yes, I am a thinker, our dear, sweet marginally literate Wa, but before anyone can understand your gibberish, you would have to become a writer and I fear it is a tad too late for that. There are several thoughtful and expressive thinkers on the right who inhabit this list and you should learn from them.
> 
> ...


You really are not much of a thinker. But, you are an obedient person.

When I look at all of the spin from the left written with perfect grammar and perfect spelling how does perfect grammar and perfect spelling keep one from being a fool when lieing is always foolish? Perfect grammar and perfect spelling has nothing to do with wisdom, nor does it remove foolishness. Before the desktop computer there were quite a number of top CEOs whose grammar and spelling were terrible and they depended upon their secretaries to make them look good in print, I doubt you are as smart as some of top CEOs. It always makes me feel good when I see somebody attack my spelling and grammar, because when they leave the subject and attack my spelling and grammar it is because they lost the argument, because nobody who is winning leaves the subject and attacks something else.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> You really are not much of a thinker. But, you are an obedient person.
> 
> When I look at all of the spin from the left written with perfect grammar and perfect spelling how does perfect grammar and perfect spelling keep one from being a fool when lieing is always foolish? Perfect grammar and perfect spelling has nothing to do with wisdom, nor does it remove foolishness. Before the desktop computer there were quite a number of top CEOs whose grammar and spelling were terrible and they depended upon their secretaries to make them look good in print, I doubt you are as smart as some of top CEOs. It always makes me feel good when I see somebody attack my spelling and grammar, because when they leave the subject and attack my spelling and grammar it is because they lost the argument, because nobody who is winning leaves the subject and attacks something else.


All I am saying, Wa, is that your writing is so terrible that it is impossible to understand what you are saying and, therefore, it is impossible to hold an argument with you. If you were able to communicate in simple English with well constructed ideas, then I would be happy to argue with you. However, I am unable to respond to your long, disjointed, and often paranoid rants. Maybe if you had your secretary proofread them for you...

Buzz


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> BENNINGTON -
> . . .
> 
> During a court hearing, Armstrong referred to himself as a "sovereign citizen" and asked the Bennington County State's Attorney's office to produce any contract between himself and the state of Vermont.


I only have one question

Which authority issues drivers licences in the US? Are they issued at a federal level or by each individual state?

If they are issued by a nationwide agency, then he hasn't got a leg to stand on, whether he has a licence or not. As that issue would make D/L rules applicable in every part of the US.

James


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

"Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. *The concept is that if I am coerced or forced to pay for a privilege granted by public servants,* I am not of a free people as a sovereign citizen of the United States of America," Armstrong wrote.

Is his assumption that in Vermont police officers are allowed to drive without being a licensed driver? I don't know how it is in Vermont, but in California officers must possess a valid driver license. I'm going to assume it is the same in Vermont. I doubt any law enforcement agency wants the liability and embarassment of employing an unlicensed officer.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I only have one question
> 
> Which authority issues drivers licences in the US? Are they issued at a federal level or by each individual state?
> 
> ...


In the United States driver's licenses are issued by the states, but states recognize the licenses issued by other states.. No matter who issues them, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> "Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. *The concept is that if I am coerced or forced to pay for a privilege granted by public servants,* I am not of a free people as a sovereign citizen of the United States of America," Armstrong wrote.
> 
> Is his assumption that in Vermont police officers are allowed to drive without being a licensed driver? I don't know how it is in Vermont, but in California officers must possess a valid driver license. I'm going to assume it is the same in Vermont. I doubt any law enforcement agency wants the liability and embarassment of employing an unlicensed officer.


I think it goes beyond that, to a claim that the government has no legitimate authority to require any citizen to obtain a license to drive.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> All I am saying, Wa, is that your writing is so terrible that it is impossible to understand what you are saying and, therefore, it is impossible to hold an argument with you. If you were able to communicate in simple English with well constructed ideas, then I would be happy to argue with you. However, I am unable to respond to your long, disjointed, and often paranoid rants. Maybe if you had your secretary proofread them for you...
> 
> Buzz


Sounds nice, except you have replied to too many of my post understanding too much. So your blather above reminds me of a small child holding a color crayon at the end of a long scribble on the wall saying "I didn't do it!".

So, I guess we'll have to greeably disagree on the grounds that you believe being gullable to spin and having good grammar and spelling, which the latter two you don't always have, is more important than not being gullible to spin.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> Sounds nice, except you have replied to too many of my post understanding too much. So your blather above reminds me of a small child holding a color crayon at the end of a long scribble on the wall saying "I didn't do it!".
> 
> So, I guess we'll have to greeably disagree on the grounds that you believe being gullable to spin and having good grammar and spelling, which the latter two you don't always have, is more important than not being gullible to spin.


..and psychologists have a technical term for your responses. It is _word salad_. No, Wa, I am saying that your posts are INCOMPREHENSIBLE. I appreciate that your only defense is to keep raving about spin, and I expect ypu will soon raise again that you can't sing Christmas songs in school. However, it is irrelevant to what I am telling you.

Try this, Wa. Go to a bookstore. Books are those stacks of paper which are attached on one edge and have writing in them. Go to a bookstore, Wa, and buy a copy of Strunk and White's _The Elements of Style_. Read it. Learn something. Use what you learn.

Buzz


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> In the United States driver's licenses are issued by the states, but states recognize the licenses issued by other states.. No matter who issues them, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.


Thanks Jack, roughly what I'd guessed at. He's just a fruit loop then? 
Or as one of my brothers likes to say 
"He's not the fizziest drink in the fridge" :icon_smile_big:


----------

