KIT, WTF! I am attempting to cloud the issue? Who the fuck had the stupidity to more or less try to blame ALL the stupid and unfair laws we talked about exclusively on Democrats? That would be YOU Keith!
Such laws are about MONEY and nothing else. The justification given by legislatures for passing such laws might well be "good-intentions" but they are all about more money for the corporations that spend millions buying influence in legislatures to get such laws passed. Socialistic nanny-state my dying ass. You simply can't be this dull-witted. BTW, we have more than 4 states in this country. On Jul 26, 1:55 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Holly, > > The laws that we are discussing, regarding an individual who is required to > turn in his auto tags when his car insurance expires or is terminated, was > created a good while ago in the various states. It was created here in > Florida under a Democratic controlled state legislature, and I would bet > money that the Missouri Legislature that passed this law that you currently > find oppressive was voted into law predominately by Democrats. It was in > order to, "Help People"...... > > You know good and well that the laws we are referencing that exist in > Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York were all passed by predominately > Democratic (socialist) controlled State legislatures. > > Yet you attempt to cloud the issue by bringing up the last presidential > election. > > Typical. Not real bright, and clearly not a very good move to sway the > masses when I once again point out how socialists are destroying this > Nation, but nevertheless, another attempt by you to divert the issue > regarding the irony of you being now outraged at this law, when you > supported the individuals who passed such Nannie-State horse hockey. > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > KIT, > > > Riiiiiigt, NONE of these laws existed under Republican > > administrations. Sure, I believe that. Are you freakin' nuts Keith? As > > a matter of fact I'm just positive that all the laws we are discussing > > came into effect since Jan. 20th 2009. Want to buy some ocean-front > > property in Nevada? > > > On Jul 26, 10:33 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The irony of this thread, is that Holly supports the politicians who > > > advocate these kinds of laws, (e.g.; the Democrat Party!!) yet bitches > > about > > > it when it effects his own brood. > > > > Irony? Or Ignorance? > > > > You be the judge!!! > > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > You are exactly correct Perp, at least here in Florida. The SR-22, as > > well > > > > as the insurance penalty, is required only if you don't turn in your > > tags > > > > after being uninsured. This had to have been the case with Holly's > > son, and > > > > I wasn't going to berate the point. > > > > > I actually agree with Holly on this issue, the law, even though well > > > > intentioned, is a bad law, and benefits the insurance companies, > > thereby > > > > hurting those individuals of lower socio-economic status. > > > > > Kind of like the bankruptcy laws now.....I think it is a bit over > > $1000.00 > > > > in filing fees now in federal court to file for protection..... > > > > > The family law cases that I see frequently, have those who are dealing > > with > > > > Florida's Department of Children, literally jumping through hoops, that > > no > > > > middle class individual could accomplish, much less an individual > > without a > > > > vehicle. By example, some of these individuals are required to take a > > bus, > > > > (of course the State furnishes them bus passes) across town, that > > would > > > > entail a day's travel, to attend some class at night that is thirty > > miles > > > > from their home. I posed this question to a Court not too long ago, > > that > > > > of all the individuals sitting in the courtroom, all with > > juris-doctorates, > > > > none of the individuals could accomplish the case plan that had been > > laid > > > > out by the Department of Children and Families for a black woman with > > no > > > > vehicle and who worked approximately 30 hours a week in a fast food > > > > restaurant with three kids to support. > > > > > Like I said last night, there are countless examples of bad laws that > > prey > > > > upon the poor and downtrodden. These insurance laws are but one > > example. > > > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Perplexed <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > >> What difference does that make? > > > >> ------------ > > > >> Umm...a huge one. Read your state's law. Only drivers and those who > > > >> own cars are required to have insurance. If someone doesn't own a car > > > >> and doesn't have insurance, they can't be penalized for going without > > > >> it for a time period. > > > > >>http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/insurinfo.htm > > > > >> I would check into it. It doesn't appear that it's legal for them to > > > >> punish him if he wasn't driving during that time period and didn't own > > > >> a car. They can stiff him for 3 years with those SR22 rates on this > > > >> if he doesn't fight it. > > > > >> On Jul 26, 9:45 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > Perp, > > > > >> > What difference does that make? He is not being punished for not > > > >> > driving, he is being "punished" for not buying car insurance for 6 > > > >> > consequetive months. In fact he was NOT driving for most of those 6 > > > >> > months as he had been in a bad accident and was in a wheelchair for > > > >> > much of the time. > > > > >> > On Jul 25, 11:34 pm, Perplexed <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > How did his insurance company know he was driving for the months > > he > > > >> > > was driving your car? Can he not just say "I wasn't driving"? > > > > >> > > On Jul 26, 12:15 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > Perp, > > > > >> > > > Nope, his driving record is perfectly clean. Only thing he did > > > >> "wrong" > > > >> > > > is to not have car insurance for 6 consecutive months as he was > > > >> > > > driving a car owned, registered and insured by me. I could be > > wrong > > > >> > > > about him actually having to file an SR-22 but the RATES he will > > > >> have > > > >> > > > to pay are the same as a driver that has had to. That was my > > point, > > > >> > > > having to pay the same rates as one who did have a bad driving > > > >> record. > > > > >> > > > On Jul 25, 10:46 pm, Perplexed <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > That's weird. Here you have to do something wrong to have to > > file > > > >> an > > > >> > > > > SR22 (like a DUI or uninsured accident). I'd check with your > > BMV. > > > > >> > > > > On Jul 24, 2:41 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > Little incident happened today that makes me furious and > > I'll be > > > >> > > > > > damned if I can think of any excuse/justification other than > > > >> plain old > > > >> > > > > > fashioned greed on the part of insurance companies. > > > >> > > > > > My oldest son is just now recovering from an extended period > > of > > > >> > > > > > unemployment bad enough that he had to return a new Jag that > > he > > > >> could > > > >> > > > > > no longer afford. I loaned him an old 4-wheel drive I kept > > for > > > >> fishing > > > >> > > > > > trips. I, of course ,had it licensed and insured in my own > > name. > > > >> > > > > > He recently started a decent job and was going to buy a used > > > >> Malibu I > > > >> > > > > > loaned him the money to buy. He called the insurance agent > > he'd > > > >> had > > > >> > > > > > for years to check on the insurance rate for it and was told > > he > > > >> would > > > >> > > > > > have to file what is called an SR-22 and would have to pay > > high > > > >> risk > > > >> > > > > > rates, the same as if he'd had multiple chargeable > > accidents, > > > >> moving > > > >> > > > > > violations and/or even a DUI! Why, he quite reasonably > > asked. He > > > >> was > > > >> > > > > > told it was because he had not had auto insurance for more > > than > > > >> 6 > > > >> > > > > > consecutive months. That's it! > > > >> > > > > > He had been driving with the same driver's license, had > > received > > > >> no > > > >> > > > > > tickets, no accidents, no nothing. So far as his actions as > > a > > > >> safe > > > >> > > > > > driver were concerned nothing whatsoever had changed. Why > > would > > > >> > > > > > someone who did not own a car have auto insurance? > > > >> > > > > > Conveniently, for the insurance companies, it is state law > > in > > > >> Missouri > > > >> > > > > > than one MUST have auto insurance. You can't even get your > > car > > > >> > > > > > licensed w/o showing proof of insurance and getting caught > > > >> driving w/o > > > >> > > > > > adequate insurance is a minimum of a $500.00 fine and the > > threat > > > >> of > > > >> > > > > > having your driver's license suspended. > > > > >> > > > > > Looks to me like a simple case of the insurance industry > > saying > > > >> "well, > > > >> > > > > > we are fucking you just because we can and there's not a > > damned > > > >> thing > > > >> > > > > > you can do about it". How many people in today's economy are > > > >> getting > > > >> > > > > > royally screwed like this I have to wonder?- Hide quoted > > text - > > > > >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
