Disclaimer

You forgot fat kid who trolls and plays xbox to prevent from binge eating

Understand I use 'you' in the general sense in most of the verbiage here... unless it explicitly applies to a particular post.

You guys saying it is a risk or saying you don't understand the loss of a title, etc. We are NOT talking street bikes here. You are responding without any knowledge of the inner circle of racing and an understanding of how things work.

I don't think I should have to qualify everything said, but the point I tried to make was -- if it originally HAD a title, then it still does, and if the possessor of the original title lost or damaged it or whatever, it's laziness at worst and misplaced priorities at best.

I don't believe you need to be in the 'inner circle' to understand this stuff. I grew up in a racing family (read: cars), and some of those vehicles don't have titles or are built from scratch with tube chassis. But there are cars that DO have titles, and they also get transferred when cars are sold. I've seen where the new owner won't necessarily ever register the new title in his name, but has the physical paperwork to give to the 3rd or 4th or 5th owner from the original titleholder who can register it if they so choose.

Yes, title or not, you can get screwed on ANY purchase whether a bike, car, airplane, watch, video game. Those are rare and if doing ANY investigating and getting things done properly, wouldn't be an issue. However, sometimes, no matter what you do, it isn't enough and you still can lose out. Live in a bubble, don't eat peanut butter and filter the air you breath.

Truth. I don't believe there's been any disagreement there.

The bottom line is this. Track day guys and racers do not NEED a title or an MCO. They have the intentions to save them and store them in a good place for later use. However, shit happens. People are busy (not always lazy - you work 50 plus hours, travel 3-4 days a week, raise two kids and have a wife that works - shit gets misplaced all the time and if you think I am lazy, come ride with me for a month and see what I deal with) and forget, lose, misplace things all the time. At the time of the sale, they do not have the needed title or MCO and do a Bill of Sale.

People are busy is not a good excuse. I've worked 40hr week, 50hr weeks, I had a 92hr week once... If you get sued in small claims court, a judge isn't gonna go "Well, he was busy so you can't sue him". Like I said, at worst it's laziness, at best it's a priority issue. If you can't take one day off, or skip one trackday to get your paperwork in order then... that's on you. You don't want to call it laziness, thats fine... And no one is telling you what you should do with your time, but I would take that into consideration when making a purchase. Especially since I like to have options - and one of those options is: well, if I don't want to have a trackbike anymore and can't find someone to buy it as a no-title trackbike, then I might have better luck selling it with a title for the street. Having a 'no title' bike is just passing the buck to the next guy to see who ends up the stuckee when they need to liquidate it.

We can let the other kids tell everyone how dangerous and scary buying anything with a Bill of Sale is and how they wouldn't advise or do it. I'll get you with about a dozen or so folks that have and several bikes that have changed hands and you can see if it is as scary and dangerous as some make it out to be.

And that's fine too. It's a numbers game. Statistically, you'll probably be OK. I don't have the REAL numbers, but if there's a 5% chance you'll get pinched by the law on a no title bike, and a 1% you get pinched on a clean title scheme/scam or something, then that's a judgement call you need to make as a buyer.

It's about picking and choosing your battles.

If I'm a sheeple because I "let" the gov't dictate that Halloween ToT is on a weekend where it's more convenient for me, and makes it less likely I'll run into sniveling kids or their parents on a Saturday night out to any establishment I frequent.... then I'm a sheeple.

The cities themselves are saying "you cant trick or treat on the 31st". The residents then take that as an order and abide because they are dumb and do not care they've just had a freedom of choice hindered upon. The proper protocol should be for the city to sit back and do nothing and let parents and kids trick or treat ON HALLOWEEN at their own risk like it has been for a long time. No coordination is needed in this whatsoever. I am the type of person that finds it a back handed smack in the face by an authority basically saying we are doing this because you're too stupid to make decisions on your own so we will do it for you. That may not be right, but its certainly not wrong

So, how do you know this isn't the gov't trolling you? It's not illegal to go out tomorrow -- just because you may think they're implying that it's forbidden, it may just be to get a rise out of the fanatical individual liberty-types to get them to go out in the shitty weather for the lulz.

That's probably what I would do if I was in the gov't.

Then what's to bitch about?

If the parents are handling it then you have no complaints and ToT will go on as planned

If the cities are rescheduling, for the parents that don't coordinate with their neighbors, then what sweat is it off your back if you're in the former group?

I guess I'm really trying to figure out what you started this thread for and what you wanted the outcome to be?

BINGO! The decision should be made by the parents and the kids, not the government

So, go trick or treating tomorrow?

You can't cry about the big bad "government" and then expect the government to use it's powers to notify, inform, and coordinate the populace as to a schedule for trick or treating.

That didn't happen when I was a kid. The neighborhood folks got together and coordinated it themselves, regardless of the "government" rescheduling. So, if you don't want to follow the GOV'T schedule, then the folks can get together and set it up themselves -- rain or shine. I blame the parents and neighborhoods for not handling it themselves.

I still can't understand how someone misplaces a title or documentation (MSO,etc.) that proves legal ownership of a semi-expensive piece of machinery, and then doesn't bother to rectify the situation.

If all my paperwork were lost, stolen, burned tomorrow... getting all of it replaced would be pretty high on my list of things to do.

It reeks of laziness on the (original) possessor of the goods if they can't be bothered to reclaim pretty important legal documentation -- especially since a clean title bike is usually hundreds if not in the thousands of dollars more valuable than a bike without (Granted, you have to do a cost vs. benefit calculation, but more often than not I'm guessing it'd still be more beneficial than costly to get that documentation). And if they're that lazy with their paperwork, then I'm curious as to what else they're lazy about... like bike maintenance.

Bullshit it was a pot shot and we both know it. I mean I don't really mind it because I know you and how you are so I'd expect nothin less than some devils advocate

Think of the children... and me, who starves every Sunday.

Hey man. I didn't say anything about you... I'm just saying that different people have different ideas of what makes others' soft.

That and every time someone complains and points fingers at one thing... just remember that same group can point the finger right back in the complainers face. You know the saying, "Every time you point a finger at someone else, there are three pointing back at you"...

The pussification of America comes from guys that have uber calorie laden cookouts every Sunday and spend the week in an office without any other moderate or intense physical activity.

Not so much from kids whose parents are the ones that typically have to shuttle their little asses around, punishing them with this weather for a meager sum of candy.

Just my humble opinion.

This is how you get tough on illegals... shoot them from a helicopter.

http://jalopnik.com/5955885/texas-state-trooper-kills-two-trying-to-disable-truck-by-shooting-at-it-from-a-helicopter

Be sure the phone is unlocked when you connect it. So, unlock it by swiping first.

Is your phone password protected?

I felt this belongs here:

Gov. Mitt Romney Blocked Birth Certificates To Gay Parents; Felt They Are Unfit And Kids Would Be Developmentally Impaired

If you're getting passed on the track I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but laptimes ain't one.

Don't fall for it. He's giving you the Ferrari special.

Tell him that dog don't hunt until he proves the bike you go home with is equal to the bike you rode.

The Community Reinvestment Act is what you're trying to debate here, not the report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Regulatory_changes_1995

and...??? Where did Clinton completely wreck it?

It's also funny to me that Clinton is to blame for crashing the housing market based on something he did MORE THAN a decade ago. Like, all of a sudden in the 13th year of your mortgage you just can't afford it.... the first twelve years, we're all good, but that 13th... gosh, just took them and so many others' down too.

Where do I find one of these 13yr ARMs?

This is my "shocked" face

:|

His bike flies.

I'd like to know exactly what they were "pressured" to do? Like, "Here, take a hit of this"-pressure? Or, "All the other banks are doing it"-pressure? Or, "the president will personally come in here and sodomize all the women-folk in your family in front of you while he shuts this bank down"-type pressure? The wiki you quote said it wasn't an industry mandate, so no bank was FORCED to do anything.

I encounter pressures and incentives everyday that I can CHOOSE whether or not they'll be beneficial to my financial, social, or professional well-being... but in the end, it's still MY choice.

NOW it is... during the late 90's early 00's, the income verification was waived for a bunch of these loans.

Granted, I'm not a big "got get a loan for 'isht'" guy, but every loan I have ever taken out either required knowledge of my stellar credit history, or verification of my income.

You missed quoting the rest of the wiki... in context

While, "Closing the Gap" was not an industry-wide mandate, it illustrates the efforts banks took to meet public pressure to overcome perceived mortgage discrimination. Under the Clinton administration community organizers pressured banks to increase their loans to minorities even though many minority applicants could not qualify for traditional 30-year fix mortgages. Karen Wegmann, the head of Wells Fargo's community development group in 1993 told the New York Times, "The atmosphere now is one of saying yes." [11] The same New York Times article echoed "Closing the Gap," writing, "The banks have also modified some standards for credit approval. Many low-income people do not have credit-bureau files because they do not have credit cards. So lenders are accepting records of continuously paid utility bills as evidence of creditworthiness. Similarly, they will accept steady income from several employers instead of the length of time at one job."

Because of looser loan restrictions many people who could not find themselves qualifying for a mortgage before now could own a home. Under pressure from activist organizations such as ACORN, then President Bill Clinton, and influential Democrats in Congress like Barny Frank,[12], banks began loans to people who should not have qualified for loans. Because banks were pressured to loan to minorities and low income applicants, and because the applicants were low-income who had rented homes for generations the banks could reap profits by selling products loaded with fees because the applicants did not either know, or care to read the fine print that would eventually raise their mortgage payments [13]

Reverse redlining...The phenomenon occurs when a lender or insurer particularly targets minority consumers, not to deny them loans or insurance, but rather to charge them more than would be charged to a similarly situated majority consumer, specifically marketing the most expensive and onerous loan products.

Follow the money.

It should probably also be noted that Mortgage Discrimination was about denying loans based on race, creed, or sex... not income.

Follow the money... who stood to profit? Banks.

You can fault the gov and the individuals all you want, but that's not how I see it. If the banks didn't think they'd make money doing it, they wouldn't.