SUber Sam

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I love living in an anti-nanny state. Brownback vetos bill adding regulations to Uber

[star seed 7]

yup, background checks and insurance are stifling innovation

[star seed 7]

some great quotes from scott schwab in there tho 

[Dugout DickStone]

Suck it, Jeff Longbine from emporia

[Rage Against the McKee]

some great quotes from scott schwab in there tho 

Yeah, he seems pretty pissed off.

[sys]

good for brownback.  i'm glad to see him get one right.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

What kind of cretin isn't a fan of uber????

Oh, 7 is

[steve dave]

good for brownback.  i'm glad to see him get one right.

yes, agreed

[Dugout DickStone]

Question is can a Kansas uber take me to the plaza?

[MakeItRain]

good for brownback.  i'm glad to see him get one right.

yes, agreed

I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.

I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?

[Rage Against the McKee]

good for brownback.  i'm glad to see him get one right.

yes, agreed

I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.

I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?

I'm not sure how easily the veto can be overridden. I doubt most of those who voted for it the first time around were aware that Brownback opposed it. Now that they know, I expect some of them will change their vote.

[michigancat]

I don't know much about the insurance aspect, but I kinda think a background check requirement for drivers seems like a good idea. Was there anything else in the bill?

[Skipper44]

good for brownback.  i'm glad to see him get one right.

yes, agreed

I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.

I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?

I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.

[MakeItRain]

I don't know much about the insurance aspect, but I kinda think a background check requirement for drivers seems like a good idea. Was there anything else in the bill?

No

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don't really know anything about it, but know that I know brownback opposes it, I support it.
-libtard

[michigancat]

good for brownback.  i'm glad to see him get one right.

yes, agreed

I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.

I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?

I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.

ah, that makes sense. It also makes sense that insurance companies want to know if their policy holders are driving for Uber.

[MakeItRain]

good for brownback.  i'm glad to see him get one right.

yes, agreed

I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.

I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?

I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.

Yeah if they have been popped for possession or dui or violent felonies that's probably a good thing. I doubt they will pull insurance for petty thieves.

[MakeItRain]

I don't really know anything about it, but know that I know brownback opposes it, I support it.
-libtard

Hilariously ironic given that you didn't read the article

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

good for brownback.  i'm glad to see him get one right.

yes, agreed

I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.

I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?

I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.

ah, that makes sense. It also makes sense that insurance companies want to know if their policy holders are driving for Uber.

I don't think it should matter if you're delivering pizza or people. No different than neighborhood car pool.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don't really know anything about it, but know that I know brownback opposes it, I support it.
-libtard

Hilariously ironic given that you didn't read the article

A conjectural and unfounded attack. Way to stay in character.

[star seed 7]

good for brownback.  i'm glad to see him get one right.

yes, agreed

I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.

I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?

I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.

ah, that makes sense. It also makes sense that insurance companies want to know if their policy holders are driving for Uber.

I don't think it should matter if you're delivering pizza or people. No different than neighborhood car pool.

Quite a bit different than carpooling really

[michigancat]

well, I can see why you don't need a background check for a pizza delivery guy, but I think an insurance company would also like to know if their drivers are delivering pizza.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

All drivers have to have insurance under existing state law, you rubes. Perhaps it's not the amount the legislature wants for uber drivers, and it is almost certainly less than required by cab services (another discussion on how fair competition is). I can't even imagine the backlash and accusations of racism if kansas tried to enforce mandatory "state minimum insurance ID check".

I don't see how the bank should have any say in the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be able to take IC cars as collateral for uber debt. If the driver's borrowed to buy their car, that lien is already on the title.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

good for brownback.  i'm glad to see him get one right.

yes, agreed

I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.

I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?

I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.

ah, that makes sense. It also makes sense that insurance companies want to know if their policy holders are driving for Uber.

I don't think it should matter if you're delivering pizza or people. No different than neighborhood car pool.

Quite a bit different than carpooling really

Didn't peg you as a Big Insurance guy.

[star seed 7]

Car insurance isn't immoral