Big improvements.

[Tilted]

I have no objection to being personally responsible and accountable for virtually every thing on the planet earth.

Like I am personally responsible for the damage to the ozone layer because I help harm it by driving my vehicle, and I am accountable to that in that I must breath the unclean air and I get the extra radiation and etc.

I am responsible for my son, and accountable to my son.

My problem is when other people mis-claim that I am responsible and accountable for stuff that is none of their business.

Other people claim that my responsibility is to pay some dirty thieves, and other people claim that I am accountable to those same dirty thieves, and I say "not" to both of those, and I say "no" to any other such immoral claims to responsibility or accountability.

Okay, then - let's say someone is at fault in an auto accident which results in damage being done to someone else's vehicle (someone whom, as a matter of fact, shares no fault for the accident). Do you think the person at fault for the accident should be legally responsible for the cost of the damage (usually this would mean through an insurer whom they had paid to insure against such a possibility), or do you think the person who had damage done to their vehicle should be legally responsible for the cost of the damage (usually this would mean through an insurer whom they had paid to insure against such a possibility)?

See, what I'm getting at is this - do you think people should be responsible for what they do, or do you think people should be responsible for what is done to them? If you answer the first question one way then you think the former, if you answer it the other way, then you think the latter. I'd just like to know what you mean by being 'responsible' or 'accountable' for something.

Oh, and if you think that people should only be responsible for what happens to them, and not for what they actually do, then - do you have any idea what effect such a dynamic would have on the quality of the things that people actually do?

 

[This_person]

Okay, then - let's say someone is at fault in an auto accident which results in damage being done to someone else's vehicle (someone whom, as a matter of fact, shares no fault for the accident). Do you think the person at fault for the accident should be legally responsible for the cost of the damage (usually this would mean through an insurer whom they had paid to insure against such a possibility), or do you think the person who had damage done to their vehicle should be legally responsible for the cost of the damage (usually this would mean through an insurer whom they had paid to insure against such a possibility)?

See, what I'm getting at is this - do you think people should be responsible for what they do, or do you think people should be responsible for what is done to them? If you answer the first question one way then you think the former, if you answer it the other way, then you think the latter. I'd just like to know what you mean by being 'responsible' or 'accountable' for something.

Oh, and if you think that people should only be responsible for what happens to them, and not for what they actually do, then - do you have any idea what effect such a dynamic would have on the quality of the things that people actually do?

You're goihg to confuse him. He only believes "responsible" means "who gets blamed", not "who has to do something".


BTW, I also want to thank you for the posts on the SCOTUS in the News threads. Much appreciated.

 

[godsbutterfly]

There is no reason to say the price of Insurance would increase under "No-Fault" because liability is the big cost and once the liability is removed then people can pick and choose lower insurance to suit one self instead of trying to suit some other person.

Particularly when people have their own health care insurance to cover then self and their family then they would not need high medical coverage in their auto insurance.

There is every reason to believe that "No-Fault" would very much lower the auto Insurance cost.

As it is now many people get very high liability coverage because if the person is even accidentally liable then they could lose their home and property and everything based on the liability demands of other people in a petty auto accident.

There is really a lot to be gained by creating a healthy No Fault insurance plan.

Speaking as an Insurance Agent - this is not feasible and you are giving me a serious headache with these notions!

 

[Tilted]

You're goihg to confuse him. He only believes "responsible" means "who gets blamed", not "who has to do something". I'm stubborn sometimes and try not to give up on someone too quickly.


BTW, I also want to thank you for the posts on the SCOTUS in the News threads. Much appreciated.

You're most welcome.

 

[Bay_Kat]

Everything I said and posted are still accurate and true.

I always stand by my words and I write what I mean.

Then you are as big an idiot as I've always thought. I still think this is a joke, you can't possibly think you have a chance, there is just no way.

 

[bcp]

I am shocked that one might think that my wonderful old ugly truck would be "illegal" when it is not.

The "Historic" tags and registration is all done up right and legal.

Historic:

• To qualify as a historic vehicle, your vehicle must not have been substantially altered, remodeled, or remanufactured from its original construction, and must be 20 model years or older.
• A historic vehicle 60 years or older may obtain a one-time, permanent, non-transferable registration. This vehicle registration does not qualify for specialty plates.
• Vehicles classified as historic certifies the vehicle will be maintained for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades, tours, occasional transportation and similar uses. The vehicle owner further certifies the vehicle will not be used for general daily transportation or primarily for the transportation of passenngers or property on highways. You will need to fill out the Application for Historic or Street Rod Registration (form # VR-096).

when are you going to the next car show?

Because, I know you wouldnt dream of getting the historic tags to save money, then drive just like it had regular tags. That would be illegal and subject to lawful intervention.

I wonder if any law enforcement officers on this forum would stop you for it.

I know I would

How can you honestly think that you would be acceptable as Marylands top official when you are nothing more than a low life POS bum?

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

Speaking as an Insurance Agent - this is not feasible and you are giving me a serious headache with these notions!

And then you get higher insurance! How perfect is this solution?

Under full no-fault coverage there is a huge reduction in the amount of Insurance needed, like no liablity and less or even none for self medical, so where is the higher cost?

 

[godsbutterfly]

Under full no-fault coverage there is a huge reduction in the amount of Insurance needed, like no liablity and less or even none for self medical, so where is the higher cost?

You honestly think that Insurance Company's would not keep increasing the cost as people have accidents? Wrongo! The more of a risk you are (as evidenced by charges, accidents and claims) the higher amount you will be required to pay.

 

[bcp]

The vehicle owner further certifies the vehicle will not be used for general daily transportation


when are you going to the next car show?

Because, I know you wouldnt dream of getting the historic tags to save money, then drive just like it had regular tags. That would be illegal and subject to lawful intervention.

I wonder if any law enforcement officers on this forum would stop you for it.

I know I would

How can you honestly think that you would be acceptable as Marylands top official when you are nothing more than a low life POS bum?

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

You honestly think that Insurance Company's would not keep increasing the cost as people have accidents? Wrongo! The more of a risk you are (as evidenced by charges, accidents and claims) the higher amount you will be required to pay.

Well that is the way it is now.

That would not be some thing new.

And with no-fault if the person has low coverage with no medical and no liability then even if they get into a crash then the Insurance Company would only pay out a relatively small amount in auto repair or replacement.

The high cost associated in accidents is medical and liability.

 

[Tilted]

Under full no-fault coverage there is a huge reduction in the amount of Insurance needed, like no liablity and less or even none for self medical, so where is the higher cost?

JP, I usually refrain from saying things that might come across as mean spirited. In fact, sometimes I don't even respond to things that people say, because i can't figure out a way to say what needs to be said without it sounding mean spirited. But, I'm gonna have to make an exception here.

Are you kidding about what you just said? I mean, please tell me that you understand the physical universe around you a little better than that comment, taken as serious, would necessarily lead someone to believe.

Somewhere in Annapolis, at this very moment, someone in Governor O'Malley's office is drafting an email, that will be circulated through every government office in the state, that reads simply:

Is this guy serious? LOL He's running for governor?

And, they're including a link to this forum, and this thread (and probably the 'JP for governor' thread).

If only you were a serious threat in the race - I can see it now, there would be 'O'Malley 2010 [URL="http://www.somd.com'"]www.somd.com'[/URL] bumper stickers all over the state.

Seriously, I kinda like your spunk, and I'm really not trying to be mean - but your logic processor is malfunctioning severely.

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

... truck ... historic ... driving ...

My dear brother, do feel free to report me and my historic Bronco to the local police at your own convenience.

No one is stopping you, and both the State Police and the Sheriff Office are familiar with your next Governor of the State of Maryland.

I do see that you want some one else to do it, but you are the one that has seen this crime so it is up to you to officially report it.

And tell them that JP sent you.

 

[bcp]

My dear brother, do feel free to report me and my historic Bronco to the local police at your own convenience.

No one is stopping you, and both the State Police and the Sheriff Office are familiar with your next Governor of the State of Maryland.

I do see that you want some one else to do it, but you are the one that has seen this crime so it is up to you to officially report it.

And tell them that JP sent you.

You got it.
Ill call and make the complaint tomorrow.

what you fail to understand, and there are some on here that can verify this, is that I also have a historic vehicle, of course, I dont drive it on any type of a regular basis, but, I do belong to several of the clubs in maryland that deal with this.

you certainly will not be the first turned in and fined.

then you can pay the full 90 per year to register the truck.

 

[Bay_Kat]

My dear brother, do feel free to report me and my historic Bronco to the local police at your own convenience.

No one is stopping you, and both the State Police and the Sheriff Office are familiar with your next Governor of the State of Maryland.

I do see that you want some one else to do it, but you are the one that has seen this crime so it is up to you to officially report it.

And tell them that JP sent you.

I'm sure they are familiar, but it has nothing to do with governor.

 

[bcp]

I'm sure they are familiar, but it has nothing to do with governor.

Im just wondering what their being familiar with O'Malley is going to do for JPC?

 

[Bay_Kat]

Too Funny! I just found the other forum he is running his mouth in. They aren't quite as nice to him as we are.

This is interesting, I really love the little smilie with a halo at the end. Nice touch JP, if you were governor (yea right) are you going to put smilies and "rock and roll" on everything you sign?

Official 2008 Campaign Website provided by Bravenet.com

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

I'm sure they are familiar, but it has nothing to do with governor.

Yes, they know me in other ways, but I put that pun in there just to pick at bcp.

I do have a big sense of humor and I find many of the comments on these Boards to be funny in many cases.

This is interesting, I really love the little smilie with a halo at the end. Nice touch JP, if you were governor (yea right) are you going to put smilies and "rock and roll" on everything you sign?

Official 2008 Campaign Website provided by Bravenet.com

The smilies and the sayings are all meant to show a little humor or to not-to-be soooo serious when it is just a discussion.

I see no reason not to try to lighten things up where ever I go.

Imagine this;
1) Some guy spray paints the State House with "Child support thieves" (funny)

2) then get 3 full years in State prison for that misdemeanor (funny)
3) then the same guy runs for Governor =

So I say if one can not laugh at that then they have no sense of humor.

 

[Bay_Kat]

Imagine this;
1) Some guy spray paints the State House with "Child support thieves" (stupid and shows that you truly are mentally challenged)

2) then get 3 full years in State prison for that misdemeanor (not enough time if you ask me)

3) then the same guy runs for Governor = will be laughed at, not laughed with.

So I say if one can not laugh at that then they have no sense of humor.

All this just shows that you should seriously be committed.

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

And then you get higher insurance! How perfect is this solution?

Okay, I believe I do get your point now - that if there is "no fault" then one would have their Insurance increased for any accident even if is was not their own fault.

And that is not the way I understand it because the Insurance being "no fault" does not mean that the accident itself is "no fault" because the police will establish the fault in many if not most cases.

Like if it is a drunken driver and the Police arrest the drunk and clearly the drunk was at-fault, but then our own Insurance will pay for our self regardless of whom is at fault.

Our own Insurance would pay for our own losses while the drunk would have to seek any compensation from their own Insurance and since the law would declare the drunk to be "at-fault" then the drunk's Insurance would increase or might even be dropped.

And if the drunk (or who ever) has no Insurance then we our self would still be covered by our own "no fault" Insurance because it does not matter who is at fault in the Insurance payments while it does matter who is at fault in the Police report.

 

[bcp]

Okay, I believe I do get your point now - that if there is "no fault" then one would have their Insurance increased for any accident even if is was not their own fault.

And that is not the way I understand it because the Insurance being "no fault" does not mean that the accident itself is "no fault" because the police will establish the fault in many if not most cases.

Like if it is a drunken driver and the Police arrest the drunk and clearly the drunk was at-fault, but then our own Insurance will pay for our self regardless of whom is at fault.

Our own Insurance would pay for our own losses while the drunk would have to seek any compensation from their own Insurance and since the law would declare the drunk to be "at-fault" then the drunk's Insurance would increase or might even be dropped.

And if the drunk (or who ever) has no Insurance then we our self would still be covered by our own "no fault" Insurance because it does not matter who is at fault in the Insurance payments while it does matter who is at fault in the Police report.

I think we all pay enough for our insurance without your idiocy that you think will get you out of having to purchase insurance.

You should really just not speak, every time you do, you prove that you are totally clueless how things work in the world.