If your license to drive is revoked, can you sue for it? No. You cannot sue for anything you want.

You can try, but if you do that more than once you might find yourself in jail. It is not your right to sue for anything.

I think you are getting confused because just about anything that you can think of does in fact fall under a claim of one form or another. However, not everything does.

again, that is incorrect. it is a right protected by the 1st amendment, that is you have the right to sue (just because you sue some one does not mean you automaticly win the case, so attempting to sue, is to sue some one) for any reason. like i have said, and even you say yourself in the second line "you can try" (although you cannot be arrested for proposing a law suit, that is nonsensical).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
(btw) wikipedia is not a legitimate resource to provide, but i will trade links any ways

and you in fact, can sue if you driver's license is revoked... if it was revoked for reasons such as: you were pulled over by a cop for your race and given a bogus citation, which went to the county court where your license was revoked by a judge with racial bias' for something as minor as a broken tail light, etc.

that is why it is a legal right to sue, for just those forementioned reasons. every citizen has the right to dispute an action, although they are not entitled to have their dispute affirmed unless the court deems it legitimate.

Mythbusters better pray that home wasn't owned by a veteran of the Civil War.

It took nearly 150 years of therapy to stop the nightmares, and just one cannonball to bring them all back.

That sounds like a tag-line for a cool game...

brb patenting

Just curious what you think this rule means:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12
[b] How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:
(1)...
(2)...
(3)...
(4)...
(5)...
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; ...

No relief, no claim, suit dismissed. I'm sorry, but filing a bogus claim does not mean that you have the right to sue for whatever you want. Just because you file a bad claim with a court doesn't mean you have the right to sue over that issue. It means that you filed a claim in court, which will shortly be thrown out of court because you don't have the right to sue on that issue.

You are confusing the difference between having the right to do something, and just doing it anyway. There is a very big difference.

"Near death experience" refers specifically to phenomena experienced while unconscious and close to death. It isn't a phrase that can be applied to instances where someone remains fully conscious but is slightly frightened. People have heard the phrase used and thought "yeah, I nearly fell off a cliff once!" and the misconception has continued.

This...

... but thats what i said, you can make a claim about any thing you want, no where did i say any where that a claim=successful lawsuit. beyond that is up to the court to decide.


Really? so your saying that a 3 word combination phrase can only have one meaning and no one is allowed to have a perspective that is not consistant to some one else who arbitarily decides that their perspective is the only correct perspective.

the truth of the matter is that language is to communicate and words are tools to achieve an understanding. even if some one uses the wrong tools to get the job done their purpose has been served... and i realized now that it was my mistake to take this bait.

Well, yea. I mean sorta. You can file a claim for whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that you have the right to do that. In fact, exactly the opposite, you don't have the right to do it, it's just that courts usually don't care. But if you do it repeatedly, you will be thrown in jail, just like if you continuously do anything else that you don't have the right to do.

Courts dismissing your frivolous lawsuit and looking the other way does not = having the right to make frivolous claims to begin with.

Go back to the driver's license example, and look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity. You will find that you actually don't have the right to sue the government at all, unless that government gives you the right by passing particular legislation specifically granting you that right. Which, of course, means that if the right was granted to you, it wasn't yours to begin with - and it can be taken away.
So no, you don't have the right to sue about your license being taken away. Unless, of course, that state said you did (and this is what you are thinking of).

Im so wasted.

They really played it up, "smashed through the home", "craziest thing". Now that news is classed as entertainment they can pretty much spew [censored].

My first thought on seeing the aerial photo was "What on Earth is a bomb range doing next to a residential area anyway?"

I can pretty much guarantee the bomb range predates the houses, so it would be more accurate to say "What on Earth is a residential area doing next to a bomb range"

Maybe it's abandoned and they haven't gotten around to developing that area yet.

This.
"Going to the nuisance." The property values were lower on big fancy houses! That's why. hehehe

You're probably not far off Defron the area probably had money issues and sold off parts of the property to developers. Just curious about the outcome of the "investigation" since Mythbusters are never "unsupervised" in their visits to the bomb range.

Yea.. They won't get in trouble. That experiment was signed off by, and maybe even set up by the bomb techs. I can hardly believe anyone would think they were negligent in any way. At fault? Yes, of course, but they aren't negligent. They did a good job, and a freak mistake happened.

That's life. Lucky for everyone, nobody got hurt.

Didn't they try that already? By putting explosives in a can of paint? :lmao:



Good thing that in this backwards country only the
afternoon newspapers (proper word escapes me at the moment) and various gossip magazines and one TV channel's news operate like that ^_^

Being a big fan of Mythbusters myself, I can honestly say this is pretty funny. I'm glad no one was hurt, thank God. But it's pretty hilarious.

I hope it doesn't get blown out of proportion. They made one mistake out of how many years? Like 8 years? I mean they've made mistakes sure but, it's not like they did it on purpose.

That's pretty awesome. I had no idea that Cannonballs were capable of that.
I laughed when that one guy said he thought it might have been a meteor.
I think that'd do a bit more damage than displacing half a roof tile haha.

Didn't they also shatter a van window. hmy:

Yup and they should be glad that's all it did if that thing hit their water heater it would have been all hell breaking loose.

Was that supposed to be a joke to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bU-I2ZiML0?

That would be the least of their worries since some places have gas water heaters. Could have caused an explosion and who knows what else devastation. Personally I'm just glad that the only thing damaged was the side of a house, a shingle, and a window to a vehicle.

As long as the show isn’t cancelled I'm happy.

Question: Why is American News so scary and serious. I don’t like it! Staying away from that link and sticking with my local news.

I'm serious its scary to watch. They describe things all weird and all talk in a deep voice! Global B.C I’m coming!