On 2/28/2011 1:28 PM, Califbill wrote:
"I

Reply:
Buying a car for cash from a private party you do not have to show
insurance. And the lack of insurance takes a while to kick in. I
sold my 96 s10 and the person failed to register the car in a timely
manner. We file a document with the DMV when you sell a car that
removes you from the liability for the car. I got a letter months
later about expired insurance. But that is more a problem with the DMV
and their crappy records system.

I think in some states you are libel for the car until it is retitled
under someone else's name. Too bad for the seller if the car was bought
to be used in a crime or if the car killed someone and was later abandoned.

In article , says...

On 2/28/2011 1:28 PM, Califbill wrote:
"I

Reply:
Buying a car for cash from a private party you do not have to show
insurance. And the lack of insurance takes a while to kick in. I
sold my 96 s10 and the person failed to register the car in a timely
manner. We file a document with the DMV when you sell a car that
removes you from the liability for the car. I got a letter months
later about expired insurance. But that is more a problem with the DMV
and their crappy records system.

I think in some states you are libel for the car until it is retitled
under someone else's name. Too bad for the seller if the car was bought
to be used in a crime or if the car killed someone and was later abandoned.

Here, you are required to turn in the old plates or transfer them when
you sell the car.. So, you may be correct.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:10:34 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:53:21 -0800, wrote:



Maybe there is something on Pennsylvania that makes fracking a problem
there or it could just be the particular operator but compared to a
nuke accident or an oil spill this is trivial.

Or, maybe it's an industry-wide problem about to happen elsewhere. Do
you object to some research to find out or should we just drill baby
drill?

I think that is most of the places they do this it is not a problem or
we would have heard about it before,. This is not a new process.

We've been "hearing about it" for quite a while. Just because the was
little or no environmental regulation or oversight for the last 10
years doesn't mean everything was just fine.

You can try and make that claim about deep offshore drilling if you
want, but I wouldn't suggest it.

You can find problems with every form of energy production. You are
the one who gave me the list of nuclear accidents.
Compare the number of accidents to the number of reactors, the danger
posed by those accidents and get back to me about a few fracked wells
that cause a problem.

So, read again where I said standardization and regulation.

Then we can start comparing that to Exxon Valdez and BP or the never
ending wars in the middl;e east.

I thought 9/11 only cost $500M?

It cost Bin Laden less than a half million to do $2 trillion (your
number, probably low) in damage. That is a pretty good return on
investment. Imagine what they could do with a couple million (a small
ransom these days)

Imagine if you were a poor, illiterate fisherman, and suddenly came
into $10000... I bet the first thing you would do would be to plan a
sophisticated attack on the US. NOT

That is not what we are talking about Al Qaeda IS in Somalia and they
are not illiterate fishermen. We are also talking about millions of
dollars, not a lousy 10 grand. I don't think the pirates are
terrorists, beyond being pirates, which is it's own form of terrorism
but we don't have a clue who is behind them or what their motivations
are. It is easy to just write them all off as "criminals" but we don't
know for sure. We don't even know how many different groups are
involved.

Most of the money isn't going to AQ. It's in the hand of the locals.
Read up.

Yemen is the real problem and it is right next door even closer to
where the 4 Americans were killed than Somalia.
They have fishermen too.
If Al Qaeda has not figured this source of easy money yet, they will.

Uh huh... well, since you're now an expert on AQ I guess we should
just take your word for it.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:51:18 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make
no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean
war.

In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on
the next plane.

Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink
in government talk.

If we donated the equipment to the German military, we could be out of there in
much less than 180 days.

Sounds like socialism to me....

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:45:35 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:52:08 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:02:27 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:15:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:21:48 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:59:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, wrote:


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military
people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have
scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half
century ago.

So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular
citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the
economy.

"1/10th"?
Why do you think military people are so poorly paid?

Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and
if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more.
They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam.

It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room
and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction
worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work.

$27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to
get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic
construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't
compute.

As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating
enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work.

I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get
shot at.

I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the
infrastructure without government funding?

You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong
direction
Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about
REDIRECTING the DoD budget

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

Besides, it doesn't have to be a relatively slow process. We damn sure moved out
a corps and a half to Kuwait in very little time.

I know, I was there.



I think he's a liar, so why would I believe this? Perhaps he's got
some pictures of himself standing next to a burning oil well... I
doubt it.

Why is that so hard to believe. It only took 180 days to move them all
over there and when we left, we destroyed a lot of stuff in place or
just left it.

WADF! (Not you...me.)

I agree!

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:17:16 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:57:30 -0800, wrote:


So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into
homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs?

By starting new projects.

Ok. So, you have no objection to projects sponsored and paid for by
the gov't! Sounds like the heavy hand of gov't to me. I have no
objection your honor!
\\

Good deal


I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the
military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then
everyone leaves.

Now you are worried about the Germans?

I'm thoughtful about how we as a nation are perceived and our effect
on the rest of the world. You aren't I guess.

I imagine there are plenty of Germans who wish we would go but even if
they didn't we are not the world's p[olicemen. If they want us there,
pay us to be there.

There are plenty more who appreciate us spending our money there. I
think we need to stay engaged there, but we don't need lots and lots
of bases. There are a few that should probably remain.


We could close foreign bases pretty fast if we wanted to and it is not
our job to replace the hole in the German economy. There are a few
people here saying the locals don't get that much money from our bases
anyway.

Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made
post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it.

False equivalency again.

Really? Well, you just got done saying you don't care about the German
economy. That's what we said after WW1.

There was nothing in common with the surrender of a largely intact
Germany at the end of WWI, left to it;s own devices and their total
destruction in WWII.
We have occupied them for 66 years. When will we decide they are OK?

As I said, I have no objection to closing most of the bases. It just
doesn't need to devastate our or their economy to do that. Again,
we're looking for a long-term solution not a short-term reactionary
policy.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:28:35 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:01:00 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:10:29 -0500, wrote:


What part of this is so hard to understand, your insurance is on the
cops computer in his car in real time.
It is not a "random stop". It is a flashing message on the laptop that
tells the cop, not only that your insurance was canceled but who your
agent/company is. You can't even get a tag without insurance and if it
lapses for any reason you tag is flagged.

So, how come all those illegals aren't getting stopped as soon as they
get on the road?? They aren't.

They run legal tags and they have insurance

? Huh? You believe that illegals have insurance on their to do list?


No insurance is a tow in Florida and you ride to the station in cuffs.

I doubt it. Most likely you're given a ticket unless there's some
other reason to detain you.


That is simply not true. They do tow cars stopped with no insurance.
My wife has had it happen to employees. They have even waited at the
gate for them to come out and bust them right there.

Sounds like a police state to me. My neighbor got stopped for expired
tags. He didn't even have his DL on him. They gave him a fix it
ticket.


I suppose you could run someone elses tag but that is fraught with
it's own perils. I would certainly expect a "felony stop" if I was
doing that. (dragged out of the car, knocked to the ground and a cops
foot on your neck)
The assumption is you are up to no good, car theft at the minimum and
perhaps something a lot worse.
That computer in the cop car has taken a lot of mystery out of who
they are looking at and certainly which car that tag belongs to.

Yet, there are lots and lots of people on the road without
insurance...

Not so much here, maybe you just need better enforcement there.
Maryland was bad about that, mostly because DC did not require
insurance. That may be better but they also do not talk to each other.
They have 2 deputies here in each district who do nothing but
insurance, out of state tags and radar.
They drive around all day just running tags to see what pops. That was
the allure of that camera system that did it automatically. They are
checking every tag that comes in range.
These guys also look for out of state tags in employee parking lots.
That one is a ticket but it is a ticket with a warrant attached if you
don't buy a Florida tag right away. The next time it is that tow and
the ride downtown.

They do all of this because we do have a lot of out of state people
here who will blow off a wreck and leave the injured party trying to
catch someone across a state line.

Well, good for FL. However, there are 49 other states plus DC.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:45:42 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash,
you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about
insurance.

Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least
not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals
and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or
otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way.

If I get a minute I will look up the California insurance law but I
bet it is as strict as any state. The open question is whether the
cops enforce it. It is possible in that touchy feely state they do not
want to take a chance of finding an illegal.
Florida is more serious about it.
We have gone paperless too, no "insurance card" in your wallet. The
cop gets your insurance status as soon as he punches in your tag
number. They do impound your car if you are not in compliance

Or, it could be that they have better things to do with their limited
resources. Perhaps we should lay off some more police (and while we're
at it fireman).

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:56:51 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash,
you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about
insurance.

Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least
not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals
and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or
otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way.





As I suspected, California has online linkage between DMV and the
insurance company and a cop can check your insurance from his car.+
Five years ago.

http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/insurance_suspension.htm

Here are some things you need to know about recent vehicle liability
insurance changes:

* As of January 1, 2006, all insurance companies are required to
report insurance status information to DMV for all private use
vehicles (CVC §16058).
* As of July 1, 2006, law enforcement and court personnel have
access to DMV records to verify that your California registered
vehicle is currently insured (CVC §16058.1).
* Effective October 1, 2006, your vehicle registration is subject
to suspension if the liability insurance is canceled, OR if your
insurance company has not electronically provided evidence of
insurance when you purchase and register your vehicle, OR if you
provide DMV with false insurance information (CVC §4000.38).

And, that covers new cars or cars bought through a dealer. How many
illegals do that? Most buy cars 2nd hand from private parties.

Sure... they *can* look it up. Most are going somewhere for more
important things.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:28:31 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"I_am_Tosk" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:11 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Listen up... if you walk into a used car lot and buy a car with cash,
you just drive out. The salesperson isn't going to ask you about
insurance.

Listen up.. No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true, at least
not here in CT. Might be in Kaliforna, but only to accommodate illegals
and derelicts... But not in CT. Every car sale is recorded, cash or
otherwise, the Tax man wouldn't have it any other way.





As I suspected, California has online linkage between DMV and the
insurance company and a cop can check your insurance from his car.+
Five years ago.

http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/insurance_suspension.htm

Here are some things you need to know about recent vehicle liability
insurance changes:

* As of January 1, 2006, all insurance companies are required to
report insurance status information to DMV for all private use
vehicles (CVC §16058).
* As of July 1, 2006, law enforcement and court personnel have
access to DMV records to verify that your California registered
vehicle is currently insured (CVC §16058.1).
* Effective October 1, 2006, your vehicle registration is subject
to suspension if the liability insurance is canceled, OR if your
insurance company has not electronically provided evidence of
insurance when you purchase and register your vehicle, OR if you
provide DMV with false insurance information (CVC §4000.38).

That's a lot of homework for the Plum. I think as soon as she noted the
"cash" thing, we all knew she was talking out of her ass... again. In CT
like you said in Fla, when someone drops insurance, the authorities are
notified right away.


Reply:
Buying a car for cash from a private party you do not have to show
insurance. And the lack of insurance takes a while to kick in. I sold my
96 s10 and the person failed to register the car in a timely manner. We
file a document with the DMV when you sell a car that removes you from the
liability for the car. I got a letter months later about expired insurance.
But that is more a problem with the DMV and their crappy records system.

Exactly. Thus, the argument about the insurance police will get you
completely falls apart.