Or the US Constitution.

Play fair.

Way to not address my points. You've simply repeated your assertion. Why would any bank finance a car loan without insurance? That would be monumentally stupid.

If you were financing car loans would you do so without requiring it be insured? That would be an extremely dumb thing not to do.

Why would finance companies and state governments not still require you to carry insurance? No finance company is going to give you a car loan and not require you to insure it. Your post is hilariously naïve.

Oh and the insurance companies are hugely greater in size than car dealerships. Car dealers are chumps in comparison.

Accidents and injuries have been decreasing for more than a decade. And yet you're still required to have insurance both by financing companies and state governments.

There is absolutely zero reason to believe that finance companies and state governments will not still require insurance even when cars are automated.

Do unicorns and flying pigs exist in that fantasy world, too?

And the government requires it to be on the road.

Hahahahahahahahaha. No, they won't. They will keep themselves around through lobbying efforts.

Since when did being a politician or running a corporation ever have a prerequisite of having a moral fiber? Political corruption goes as far back as the first governments. Same with corrupt corporations.

Even the "classical" Western democracies and republics had rampant corruption. It's more "ironic" that you think having a moral fiber was ever regular.

Yes. You have established the evidence and legal basis for summary execution. Excellent job, AmeriKKKan!

The release of the convenience store surveillance video by the Ferguson police was a remarkable accomplishment in changing the narrative by appealing to racial stereotypes centred around the young black male "thug". No matter what facts are yet to be determined, the cultural impact will be to further solidify already established divides and to ensure that attempts at dialogue are frustrated by competing and mutually exclusive world views.

The police presentation emphasized a rarely used technical term - strong-arm robbery - which predetermined how the video and select stills would be viewed. Therefore, while a dispute which clearly featured a shove occurred, the context or interpretation of this event relies on a police report written sometime after the fact (Brown is identified by name) and which cites only two witnesses, both store employees. The other witnesses seen in the video do not react in a manner which suggest a violent assault and robbery is occurring. The suspect Brown actually returns items to the store counter, as does his friend.
The items by which it is alleged he steals had fallen to the floor and Brown leans over to pick them up. It is, in other words, a strange sort of robbery. The assault is limited to a shove as the store employee tries to prevent him from the door. The police had over five days to talk to the other witnesses and establish a clearer picture of what happened. There is no indication they had done so.

I don't know what happened in that store, but a review of the surveillance video suggests that the dispute which did occur may be something a little less than what is claimed. If so, then the now ingrained image of Brown as a "thug" may not be correct. The manner of the release of the tape has encouraged both a racially biased backlash and support for the notion that the police officer involved in the later shooting was first assaulted by Brown, an element to the incident claimed only by the police.

The one's I cite are documented.

UKIP are like Canada's Labor - post-Harper. Nazi.