Tuesday: Its a privilage to drive, its a privilage to purchase a t.v., its a right to talk

Vikings: They were talking about free speech not adverts... you have given NO proof, just an opinion.

That.. in the past adverts have been subject to legislation does suggest that you are wrong regardless of your stance of "free speech". As such, it is selling, not speaking or having an opinion.

Tuesday: apples and oranges, first of all it is up to the states to impliment the drivers liscense and laws. next I'm not aware as to where in the constitution that would be covered

You have touch on something very important, the first amendment doesn't require you to listen to those advertisements which goes right back to rods point

(V): you have given an opinion of your point of view. I haven given you proof that your opinion is just that your opinion(but free speech) and that it is a right of free speech, The amendment doesn't say "except when someone has an opinion as to what is free speech"

Tuesday: I like to pause a prog as it starts.. then fast forward past the ads.

Vikings: I already have explained my position. You are disagreeing stating it's free speech.. well then. Explain yourself.

If you are just exploiting a bit of the constitution to defend your point.. then just say so.

Tuesday:Having a T.V. is not a right, nobody forced you to purchase it, I agree it is annoying tho

(V): You send a signal to your nerve in your throat and that makes a muscle reverberate and noise comes out and whala speech is formed and that is deemed free by the first admendment

you explain how it is not

Vikings: Adverts are free speech?? Explain how please.

(V): it's called free speech!

Tuesday: to sue the government

Vikings: I see nothing about TV ads mentioned in your quote. Nothing at all.

It's not opinion it's fact, and it is covered in the constitution
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is just another example of judges illegally making law

rod03801: So being as it's not there either way on TV and radio, it's just an opinion that it's not supposed to "insert itself into such matters." .. But then again.. ain't you guys in the USA had rules on things that can be shown on TV, especially regarding sex, foul language and Saturday morning TV?

Which implies that the gov does have some right.

As for money talks. Please.. we are talking about companies that were happy to use subliminal messaging in adverts... is that still legal?

(V): NO, and that's EXACTLY the point. The constitution had NOTHING about anything as silly as that, because it's not supposed to insert itself into such matters.

Doesn't need to be legal either. People could stop doing business with the offending parties. Money talks.

rod03801: So the original constitution had rules about TV and radio??

"straightened out with the people on our OWN level."

Through the legal system which takes how many years?

We have OFCOM in the UK.

(V): No, I wouldn't say so. I tend to take a more "old fashioned" view on what our Federal govt is supposed to do. As the founders intended, it is supposed to be very limited. This is NOT something the federal government should be concerned with. State? MAYBE, but even then. This is something that could be straightened out with the people on our OWN level. NOT by wasting my tax money. If they ONLY dealt with things that they were INTENDED to deal with, they could possibly do a better job at THOSE things. (I doubt it though. Anything the federal government butts into, they mess up and do it non-economically)

Blimey.. it's as if we in the UK haven't had legislation for decades covering race, sex, religious and other types of discrimination and harassment.

And the current government implementing this legislation if of what political party mainly...

CONSERVATIVE!!!

which just goes to prove.. Conservatism in the USA is a breed apart

Artful Dodger: It's total political correctness gone mad.

October 02, 2010
No laughing matter, UK's Equality Act to be implemented immediately
Phil Boehmke
This may not be a joke, but somewhere deep in the bowls of hell, Hitler, Mao and Stalin are sharing a good laugh in Satan's Grand Ballroom as they toast Labour's Equality Act (written in an adjoining conference room) with vintage fire water.

The UK Daily Mail reports that.

Ministers yesterday announced that the vast bulk of Labour's controversial Equality Act would be implemented immediately, despite concerns about its impact on business and office life.

The legislation, championed by Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman, introduces a bewildering range of rights which allow staff to sue for almost any perceived offence they receive in the office.

It creates the controversial legal concept of ‘third party harassment,' under which workers will be able to sue over jokes and banter they find offensive-even if the comments are aimed at someone else and they weren't there at the time the comments were made.


This leftist attack on freedom and individuality creates a legal framework whereby anyone can sue their employer for anything which they perceive to be offensive. To make matters worse, there is no safeguard for the accused in the form of a warning system. The ‘victim' is not required to tell the person involved that their comments are offensive and there is no provision for a written warning either, instead this is a one and done measure. What this means is that an employee can overhear a joke which was not directed at them, perceive it to be offensive and then sue without any attempt at corrective action.

This is sure to create a morale strangling, job killing business environment where dissatisfied employees can exact their revenge on their co-workers and their employer for perceived wrongs. Now consider that the ‘Equality Act' will also apply to vendors and customers. How could any business operate under these Hitleresque new laws?

Let's say a customer goes into an automobile dealership to look for a new car, they find a model that is almost exactly what they are looking for except for the color so they tell the sales person they just don't like black, can they get the same car in white. An employee overhears the conversation, takes offense because they perceive this to be a racial slur and the law suit merry go round begins. An extreme example? But is it possible?

Other provisions include.

Under the legislation, employers will be barred from asking about the health of job applicants, leading to fears they could be landed with staff with appalling sickness records.

Workers can cite ‘discrimination by association' if they feel they have lost out because of an employer's prejudice against a relative, such as a gay brother.


Employment tribunals have also been given powers in the workplace, such as requiring managers to undergo diversity or equality training.

Companies will no longer be allowed to maintain policies which prohibit employees from discussing compensation, which the law's proponents claim will end ‘pay discrimination.' This of course will kill productivity as there will be no incentive for any worker to exceed the minimum requirements of their position. For example: If Sarah and Barry each have the same job title and have been working for their company for the same number of years, but Sarah does three times more work with only a fraction of the mistakes, she should be entitled to earn much more than Barry. If Barry has an issue with Sarah's compensation because he perceives it to be unfair, he can sue. Soon everybody will get fair pay and productivity will level off at the lowest acceptable level, everybody loses.

Why would anyone in their right mind invest their hard work and resources to build a business and create jobs with such insane anti-business laws on the books? The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said that the new laws are just a part of a series of employment law reforms which will lay £ 11.3 billion in additional costs on the already overburdened business community. The BCC added.

Abigail Morris, policy advisor at the British Chambers of Commerce, said the Government's own impact assessment showed it would cost business £ 190 million just to get to grips with the new laws.

She said the full cost could be greater is employers face a fresh wave of trivial discrimination and harassment claims.

She added: ‘Businesses are really concerned about this. Even the Government admits it imposes an absolutely huge cost on business.'


Think it can't happen here? One month from today on November 2nd vote like our entire way of life hangs in the balance, because it really does.

Tuesday: At the time John the Baptist wetted Christ?

"You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

... somehow I don't think it was Darth Vader!!

Tuesday: And Moses heard who's voice?

As for age.. people are living longer, people have already beaten 120.

Artful Dodger: Does that include how you put your socks on??

Bernice: The basic strategy of Obama isn't one of restoring our economy but of ruining it. Once it's ruined, the government will grow even bigger, taxes will go up even higher, and government will control everything. They are trying to build power to control our lives. Fortunately, most Americans see through it. Obama is a liar and perhaps even an evil man.

rod03801: But.. the government does have more than one person looking into things don't they??

Picking on that they are sorting out a piece of legislation that some feel needs to be sorted out is just being pedantic is it not?

Tuesday: But God did not stop speaking... nor is it that man will live less then 120 years... I thought it was 4 score and ten anyway!!

Artful Dodger: and just how true is that....thank god I live in Australia where the recession sort of by-passed us.

if he said 120yrs, then a hell of a lot of the people (past) have missed out on so much.

Or is it only those that are churchy that get the 120yrs.?

(V): Too stupid when there are much more important things to deal with. I don't like seeing bright red in commercials. Shall the Senate take that up too? Please, you just want to debate everything.

Tuesday: That then implies question to how the Lord appeared and spoke to so many in the OT... when he wasn't even born then....

Sarah: