Comments on: Sam Dodson “Guilty” in Uneventful Trial

By: Simi

Simi — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:48:13 +0000

Thomas Pynchon made the quite cogent observation that if you get people asking the wrong questions, the answers are truly meaningless. The question that deserves the MOST attention and requires an answer BEFORE taking up the minutiae of the case is why, in a land whose motto is “Live free or die” we tolerate ‘bears’ who claim non-existent ‘authority’ (“All men are created equal…”) and maul people who have harmed no one, but had the temerity to disobey their ‘servant’ masters. Give me the answer to THAT question, friend Observer, and then we can see if there is any relevance to drivers’ licenses and the idea that people who are “endowed by their creator with inalienable rights” must grovel to some bureaucrat for the ‘privilege’ of moving himself and his property from place to place. Or do you believe we are all in prison and need to get permission from the ‘warden’ to travel around?

By: Observer

Observer — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:32:02 +0000

I think Jay’s questions deserve more attention and require an answer from Sam if he wants support. I don’t know enough about the circumstances around the revoking of the license so I don’t know exactly what Sam was hoping to accomplish when I’m pretty sure he was aware of the revoking and why. If I were the judge, I would have tossed the case out as a waste of my time and sent Sam on his way because I don’t see what a revoked Texas DL has to do with driving in new hampshire and maybe that was the point of the trial. You activists KNOW how these people are and know what you’re getting into when you confront them…PLEASE continue to post your adventures in doing so BUT PLEASE stop with the righteously indignant attitudes as if you didn’t see it coming and you’re the poor little victim. When yo confront a bear and get mauled, don’t go crying about it as if you didn’t see it coming and feel lucky when you get away with not being mauled.

By: bil

bil — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:05:35 +0000

Actually it is-although I do it more for fun than profit.Stretching the rules to the breaking point.It is like the rule about paying taxes-it is the duty of everyone to ensure that you don’t pay any more taxes than nessessary.It just depends who does the defining! —bil

By: xrazorwirex

xrazorwirex — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:28:36 +0000

Sounds like alot of fun, bil.

By: bil

bil — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:34:08 +0000

XRAZORWIREX-I already have one of those running here-also in Vt.The MV rules are real easy to get around.No taxes if you work it right. —bil

By: theKINGofKEENE

theKINGofKEENE — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:28:32 +0000

FEEL BAD? For a bunch of bureaucraps??? Hey, pay-back is a bitch! I’m sure it was just a coincidence, but this morning, I saw Howard B. Lane, jr., in a local convenience store. I said, “Hi, Howard!”…I can’t read his mind (it’s closed!…), but I think he is both ashamed and embarassed to see me. At least, that’s what I hope!…(you know, Sam, you did have old Howard reeling back into the ropes a few times. Wouldn’t take much “coaching”, to go in the legal ring and *KICK ASS*!…Seriously!

By: TimSully

TimSully — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:12:19 +0000

Just fucking COMPLY why don’t you. Goddammit Sam, look how uncomfortable those bureaucrats are, don’t you feel bad?

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:39:06 +0000

Amazed,

You’re intellectually bankrupt and dishonest. You still have not my questions here: http://freekeene.com/2009/08/14/courtroom-disobedience-frightens-fellow-slave/, yet despite your utter inability to defend your belief system, you feel the need to continue to toss cheap insults and make snap psychological judgments of others.

It is interesting that you use the word “fundamentalist” as an insult, which Webster defines as: “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles”. It’s quite appropriate, since you apparently have no principles at all.

Thank goodness for those fundamentalist abolitionists, who were able to look at a society based on slavery and conclude that it did not abide by basic principles for right and wrong. Thank goodness for the fundamentalists that declared independence from Britain, making claims that the established political order violated basic God-given rights and moral principles. Thank goodness for the civil rights fundamentalists, who looked at a segregated society and concluded that it too violated moral principles. Thank goodness for the white rose society, which was able to recognize that their current societal order and political leaders were evil, and did not conform to basic moral principles.

And in each of these instances, and many others, there were the bootlickers and cowards like yourself, who had no principles of their own for which to stand, and so went along with whatever the status quo happened to be. They waved in the winds of popular opinion, going along to get along, and invariably ended up helping to perpetrate the evil of their time, or at the least doing nothing to stop it.

It is always difficult to recognize injustice or evil in one’s own society. In each of the instances above, the situation seemed inevitable, and changing it seemed unthinkable and extreme. People supposed that society itself, for example, could not survive without slavery. Rigidity is not good, but I do hope to always stand on principle, and be willing to apply those principles to areas to which many are not accustomed to using them. In 1840, that meant applying the well known principles of basic god given human rights to blacks as well. Today, it means applying well known principles of basic right and wrong behavior to the actions of government.

By: Lpviper

Lpviper — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:20:30 +0000

License, license, license. Where was his permission from the masters to travel?

Meh

By: Jay

Jay — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:14:19 +0000

Also, if Sam knew his license was going to be revoked in a week for 4 months it makes a little more sense why he was so content to sit in jail as those weeks ticked by while not having a valid license.