He just not that into you.
I love how half of his examples of the “mean streets” of LA are extremely affluent neighborhoods. The only “illegals” you’d find in Calabasas, Altadena, or La Cañada are cleaning houses or mowing lawns. I wonder if he was confused by the Spanish-sounding names? What about San Marino, Sierra Madre, and Bel Air? Open sewers of crime and vice, all those places. :rolleyes:
Who doesn’t believe in germ theory. He’s an idiot.
Now, now, the VAX series was quite a technology breakthrough in its time. Why would anybody not wearing IBM blue have been opposed to it?
How about Jerry Brown - Governor of California deciding to stop impounding cars of unlicensed drivers.
That is a stupid liberal idea.
I don’t think anyone here would agree that you should be driving without a license.
If you are unlicensed and caught you should have your car impounded and pay the fee. Right?
You should not be driving without a license no matter what the circumstance whether you are an illegal alien or a minor child or forgot your license at home.
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_19605772?source=most_viewed
I don’t drive a car but I ride a bike everyday to work and back. And I don’t want to be on the road with unlicensed drivers that don’t know the traffic laws.
What does Jerry Brown have to do with it? The article only mentions Los Angeles.
Jerry Brown signed AB 353
is this proof enough?
The stupid Republican idea is to blame everything on the top Democrat in the area. If California was closer to DC they would blame Obama.
That article suggests two different things, and I don’t know which is what they are (or were) doing. One sentences says they impound cars of drivers who do not have a valid license, and another talks about “unlicensed drivers”.
If I forget my wallet at home, and get stopped, is my car gonna get impounded on the spot?
“Across the nation, one in five car-related deaths are blamed on unlicensed motorists, according to an AAA study.”
Now thanks to Jerry Brown - The Democrat Governor Of California - You can now drive without a license in California and the only penalty is you have to call a friend to pick up your car at the side of the road if you get caught. Just say you are a illegal alien and you get a free pass thanks to assemblyman Gil Cedillo and jerry brown.
Its not so fun riding a bike here in los anageles nowadays.
Well – now you can drive a car! It will be much safer.
But I am not an illegal alien.
Do you have Jerry Brown Coupon I can use ?
So 4 out of 5 are caused by licensed drivers? That sounds like a bigger problem to me. Maybe we should something about them first.
This is yet another example of poor reporting. The actual AAA study is here: Unlicensed to Kill: Research Update. Despite the provocative title, the report doesn’t actually conclude that “one in five car-related deaths are blamed on unlicensed motorists.” What it actually says is:
Overall, an average of 8,030 drivers who were definitely or possibly driving with an invalid license or no license (13.7 percent of all drivers involved in fatal crashes) were involved in 7,679 fatal crashes (19.9 percent of all fatal crashes), which resulted in the deaths of 8,801 people (20.5 percent of all deaths
occurring in motor vehicle traffic crashes).
First, there is no discussion of fault, so “blame” can’t be assigned, only “involvement.”
Second, because many crashes involve more than one driver, the 20% statistic over-inflates the percentage of unlicensed/ invalidly licensed drivers involved (which only make up 13.7% of the *drivers *involved).
Third, note that the drivers in the report include “who were definitely *or possibly *driving with an invalid license.” That means the statistics are inflated by including drivers where the researchers *didn’t know *the licensure status.
Fourth, and probably most important for the situation being discussed, the AAA report lumps together “unlicensed” drivers and those driving on revoked or suspended licenses. The news article linked to above indicates that the LA police treat thes classes differently, to wit: “The proposed change would lift the monthlong impound for unlicensed drivers, unless licenses have been revoked or suspended.” In fact, most of the data in the AAA report are concerned with drivers with a revoked/suspended license rather than no license at all.
The sponsors of AB 353 were Michael Allen and Gil Cedillo, both of whom are Democrats.
In the Assembly, fifty Democrats and fourteen Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Twelve Republicans and no Democrats voted against it. Two Democrats and two Republican did not vote on the bill. In the Senate, twenty-four Democrats and six Republicans voted for the bill. Seven Republicans and no Democrats voted against it. Two Republicans and one Democrat did not vote on the bill.
So I would say that it was predominantly a Democratic bill although some Republicans joined in.
I think we have a valid stupid idea. Although Democrat supported, I don’t see it as being particularly liberal, though. Seems more like a feeble cost-savings bill.
Not to mention that Brown signed into law a bill prohibiting employers at any level from using E-Verify to check whether a job applicant is a citizen or not. Another stupid liberal idea.
Stupid and inaccurate, unless you can come up with a supporting cite for that claim. “Prohibiting the mandate of E-Verify” is not equivalent to “prohibiting employers at any level from using E-Verify.”
Vinyl Turnip beat me to it. The law does NOT prohibit employers from using e-Verify, as a cursory examination of news articles or the law itself would make clear.
Why is it that almost every time you post in this thread, all you do is provide another example of what a stupid conservative looks like?
Because he gets all his news from Rush.