New California Driving Laws take effect January 1st, 2016

Per Eagle:
>Ah...I see said the blind....

.... carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 2 Jan 2016 12:12:51 -0500
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> burfordTjustice > wrote:
> >"Eagle" > wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think issuing Cali drivers license to illegals will
> >> attract many illegals. That would mean they would have to get
> >> legal and buy insurance or have their ride confiscated and them
> >> jailed for no insurance. You can't jail the buggers because of
> >> being in country illegally, so off they go....on foot.
> >
> >Put down the pipe and back away.
> >You stupid ****ing dope head.
> >They already drive!
>
> That's basically the point of giving them licenses. They are already
> driving, so this allows the state to figure out who they are and keep
> some degree of control over the process rather than just throwing
> their hands up over the matter.
>
> What else are you going do to? Put them in jail? Believe me, living
> in an American jail probably beats living in Tegucigalpa these days.
> Until it's actually safe to live in Central America and people are
> able to make a living doing honest work there, we're going to
> continue to have a problem.
> --scott
>

Unless the drivers license lets them vote,
illegals are not going to get one.
Only Calif. liberals think they will

On 01/02/2016 09:12 AM, Eagle wrote:

[snip]

> "Hoverboard"? Like the ones used in 'Back To The Future part 2'?

They SHOULD.

Some people around here got those for Christmas. They had 2 wheels (on
the sides).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The statement that God created man in his own image is ticking like a
time bomb in the foundations of Christianity." -- Arthur C. Clarke

On 01/02/2016 12:55 PM, Eagle wrote:
>
> VERB
>
> 1.(in music and film) move without interruption from one song, melody,
> or scene to another:
> "allowing one song to segue into the next"
>
> NOUN
>
> 1.an uninterrupted transition from one piece of music or film scene to
> another.
>
> Huh? lol

Okay, okay, Segway to you sir! Anyway users of the device commonly
referred to as a hoverboard tend to seque from standing to lying on the
ground moaning. Ignore the clauses in the definition of seque that talk
about a smooth transition. Ain't nothing smooth about it.

On 2016-01-02, Mark Bannon > wrote:
> AB 208, Bigelow. Vehicles: highway: lane use.
>
> Existing law (2015) requires, on a 2-lane highway where passing is
> unsafe due to specified reasons, *a slow-moving vehicle* behind
> which 5 or more vehicles are formed in a line to turn off the roadway
> at the nearest place designed as a turnout or wherever sufficient
> area of a safe turnout exists in order to permit the vehicles
> following it to proceed.
>
> This bill (2016) requires, on a 2-lane highway where passing is
> unsafe due to specified reasons, *any vehicle* proceeding upon
> the highway at a speed less than the *normal speed of traffic*
> moving in the same direction at that time, behind which 5 or more
> vehicles are formed in line, to turn off the roadway at the
> nearest place designated as a turnout or wherever sufficient area
> for a safe turnout exists.
>
> "slow moving" vs "any vehicle at less than normal speed"
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201520160AB208

Creates a catch 22. Going the speed limit is less than the normal speed
of traffic. Going the normal speed of traffic is speeding. Perfect when
combined with the war on some drugs and civil asset forfeiture.

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 14:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Mark Bannon
> wrote:

>Another new crime!
>
>It's already illegal for car drivers, but if you're on a bicycle,
>it's now illegal to use a headset, earplugs or earbuds in both
>ears while operating your bicycle.
>
>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201520160SB491
>It's in there - buried deep down within the wholly unrelated crap.
>
>(11) Existing law prohibits a person operating a motor vehicle or a
>bicycle from wearing a headset covering both ears, or from wearing earplugs
>in both ears, subject to certain exceptions.
>
>This bill would also prohibit wearing earphones covering, resting on,
>or inserted in, both ears. Because a violation of these provisions would
>be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
>

So does this make the use of hearing aids illegal while driving or
bicycling or are they an exemption.

It's all typical stupid big brother gvt assholery.

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 14:36:48 -0000 (UTC), Mark Bannon
> wrote:

>The always wacko state of California had to make a (temporary) law
>so as to NOT charge tolls for pedestrians on bridges!
>
>AB 40 keeps toll bridges free for pedestrians and bicyclists
>but only until 2021, so hurry up!
>
>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...=201520160AB40


Great, typical chicken**** gvt/representative BS so that when they
allow the lobbyists to get their money it will be years later and that
way the chicke**** legislators who passed this won't get the blame
when it happens.

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 11:15:34 -0500, burfordTjustice
> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 07:19:27 -0800
>"Eagle" > wrote:
>
>> AMuzi laid this down on his screen :
>> > On 1/2/2016 8:42 AM, Mark Bannon wrote:
>> >> Just to prove that the state is filled with wackos, starting
>> >> January 1st, 2016, California DMV offices will begin issuing
>> >> driver's licenses to people in the country *illegally*.
>> >>
>> >> Under AB 60, applicants must prove who they are, that they
>> >> live in California and, surprisingly for California, they
>> >> must also pass a driving test.
>> >>
>> >> A new law will also provide access to auto insurance.
>> >>
>> >> DMV officials say they expect about 1.4 million *illegal*
>> >> cheaters to apply for a driver's license in the first three
>> >> years.
>> >>
>> >> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...=201520160AB60
>> >>
>> >
>> > The last time I had "access to auto insurance" it was $300 cash or
>> > certified check, in person at their offices, for a 30 day policy.
>> > Wonder what these guys will pay, if anything..
>>
>> I don't think issuing Cali drivers license to illegals will attract
>> many illegals. That would mean they would have to get legal and buy
>> insurance or have their ride confiscated and them jailed for no
>> insurance. You can't jail the buggers because of being in country
>> illegally, so off they go....on foot.
>Put down the pipe and back away.
>You stupid ****ing dope head.
>They already drive!

Yes. This is just the liberals making their life easier by giving
ILLEGALS a LEGAL ID. Try this in Mexico and see how far you get as an
American down there illegally....

On 2 Jan 2016 12:12:51 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>burfordTjustice > wrote:
>>"Eagle" > wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think issuing Cali drivers license to illegals will attract
>>> many illegals. That would mean they would have to get legal and buy
>>> insurance or have their ride confiscated and them jailed for no
>>> insurance. You can't jail the buggers because of being in country
>>> illegally, so off they go....on foot.
>>
>>Put down the pipe and back away.
>>You stupid ****ing dope head.
>>They already drive!
>
>That's basically the point of giving them licenses. They are already
>driving, so this allows the state to figure out who they are and keep
>some degree of control over the process rather than just throwing their
>hands up over the matter.
>

So I guess we should give convicted DUI offenders licenses too and let
them drive so we can better keep track of them.

>What else are you going do to? Put them in jail? Believe me, living
>in an American jail probably beats living in Tegucigalpa these days.
>Until it's actually safe to live in Central America and people are able
>to make a living doing honest work there, we're going to continue to have
>a problem.
>--scott

On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:46:52 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" >
wrote:

>Per Scott Dorsey:
>>What else are you going do to? Put them in jail? Believe me, living
>>in an American jail probably beats living in Tegucigalpa these days.
>>Until it's actually safe to live in Central America and people are able
>>to make a living doing honest work there, we're going to continue to have
>>a problem.
>
>I keep hearing that the net Mexico-USA migration is towards Mexico now.

It certainly was, starting a little after the recession started.

Now that the recession is pretty much over, I would think things
could reverse again, although of course they have to make it into the
country again. No small feat.
>
>If that's correct, are the numbers over-ridden by immigration from
>Central America ?

I don't know but I don't think the Central American numbers are as
great as the Mexican.

I've heard that when NAFTA was passed, the North American Free Trade
Act, it cost some/quite a few Americans their manufacturing jobs as
Mexicans did it cheaper, but the corn farms in the midwest with their
enormously efficient farm machinery could raise corn a lot cheaper,
and this stopped 10's of thousands of Mexicans from making a living on
the small farms they owned or worked, and that that's why there was
such a burst of Mexicans entering the US after NAFTA.

Googling, these, written in 2014 and 2012, says that very thing:
http://www.politicalresearch.org/201....Ynu1utVN.dpbs
and
http://www.thenation.com/article/how...eat-migration/