Replies

I don't think Schwarzenegger ever meant to smash historic cars. We all know the type he is referring to...a $300 car that you buy from Uncle Buddy that has 6-cyclinders, but only four work...the passenger's side is rusting enough that you can see the ground below...and the guy is pouring a can of oil into the car every 150 miles. We all know this guy...and we all laugh about the old car he keeps cause he doesn't want to really want to fix the thing or he is simply out of cash. Having a vehicle...isn't a right...I must agree with. It is a personal decision, and either you stay within the law....or you walk to work.

There are plenty of those limping, broken down rust buckets parked in my neighborhood, all owned by ILLEGALS. Arnold could hit two birds with one stone by insisting on deporting illegals.

I don't think Schwarzenegger ever meant to smash historic cars

Yes he does. An employee for the states housing, transportation and jobs department said at a smart growth conference recently that there should be no cars older that 5 years old on the road, especially if they are luxury cars. The little communist said if people can afford to buy a porsche they can afford to buy one every year. He also went on to say they should be crushed, so there isn't even a tail light left. These people run our government and they are advising the governor!!!

The state government is absolutely full of car-hating people who are now working to decommission roads. There is a road across the creek from me, that the county has designated for "decommissioning" . This means never repairing it, don't fix bridges or landslides, and eventually the road will be impassible. The homes on the road have been selected for decommissioning also, but their owners won't find out until they apply for a permit to remodel.

In our county, the county government now calls areas that are not withing "urban boundaries" wildlands. These wildlands actually are fairly suburban fairly densely populated. But by designating areas outside the urban growth boundaries wildlands, then the wildlands project plans can be implemented.

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/roads/whats_wrong.html

What's Wrong with Roads in Wildlands?

> Roads harm fish and wildlife by destroying habitat

> Roads spread weeds like Scotch Broom and knapweed

> Collapsing roads and blown-out culverts cause erosion and water pollution

Having a vehicle...isn't a right

Let me guess then, owning a car is a privilege bestowed by government? We are so lucky to have such a nice government.

Having a vehicle...isn't a right...I must agree with

Oh, you're drinking that Kool Aid, too? Don't forget that if driving were a privelige, it would have to repose somewhere before the monarchy decided to give it to us. This supposes that those privelieges are naturally the property of government, to be dispensed at its pleasure.

It's thinking like that that has brought us revocation of drivers' licences over issues unrelated to the safety of other drivers on the road, like high school grades and child support enforcement.

If they can do that, if the "privelige" is their property to give or withhold as they see fit, why would it be morally objectionable for them to dispense licences on political criteria? It's already happened with concealed carry licences. I believe it's a right, subject to revocation only for behavior that endangers other drivers or pedestrians, and with the burden of proof firmly on the government (presumption for the driver).

first posted by freeper still thinking on this thread but it completely applies here as well