Posted on 02/24/2005 12:32:34 AM PST by ijcr
I hope they are--the innocent fear not the watchers; indeed, they appreciate their vigilance...as do I here.
I have nothing further to say to you
Nor do I to you...this will end the second I don't see an "new posts to you" at the end of my refresh button with the name "Mad Ivan" attached to it--not before...
That's one sure way to never hear from me again...
(Not the abuse minister...the argument minsiter...make sure you get the right room. /grin)
of course if you have to ask you are proving my point...
Just not too much currency, lest the police confiscate it without laying charges.
I'm sorry mate but as far as I see, America's freedom is seriously under attack. The moral thought-police are systematically 'purifying' your media. I mean, look at the crisis that exploded after Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction'. The whole country was in paroxysms of fear and angst over a split-second image of a woman's breast. When I heard about that, alarm bells rang. Over here, we get to see that kind of stuff - and lots more - all the time. Doesn't it piss you off that a bunch of moralising morons are dictating what you can and cannot watch on TV?
I understood it was a hypothetical. My understanding was that if the same sermon was given in the UK it would lead to arrest. (and I was being somewhat tounge in cheek with the poster)
The Philly 5 were ultimately released. We have bad apples here in the US...the prosecutor that authorized those charges should be disbarred - you just don't arrest people under those circumstances.
While the UK is clearly not free...MHO is that the US is just a shade behind you.
G'day.
See #67.
Read the list, UK is the 7th freeest, the USA is the 13th.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
You can't really argue with that, especially as it was compilled by such a fine organisation as The Heritage Foundation, of which Rush Limbaugh has said,
"Some of the finest conservative minds in America today do their work in The Heritage Foundation"
http://www.heritage.org/about/
oh, and BTW...I didn't have to pay the government a license fee to see that malfunction.
I still can't get over that fact...that you guys on the othe side of the pond need a license for a TV.
I'm wondering how long it will be before the screaming Socialists over here want to license personal use TVs, radios and computers???
Its not so much that we British need a licence for a TV like Americans would need a licence for a gun or a pet wolverine: the TV licence was the only means of paying for the BBC (the only TV service back in the days of Lord Reith) and was therefore mandatory.
Now the BBC has become (IMO) your lefty-NPR writ large, it is a problem. But back when it was providing quality TV with no ads, few in the UK had a problem with it.
"The whole country was in paroxysms of fear and angst over a split-second image of a woman's breast."
No, we weren't. We were disgusted that a family show turned into an MTV bump-and-grind sex simulation. It just isn't appropriate. Believe it or not, parents not only have sex, we enjoy it, but we don't want it on the TV for our kids. When they're older, they can make their own decisions about the value and quality of the popular culture, but until then, we want network television to remain tame and family-oriented. God knows that people who want to watch sex can do so at almost no cost 24-7 if they want-- it's all over cable TV, the internet, movie rentals, magazines, etc., etc..
But, can we please keep just a small portion of the public square suitable for people of all ages, for families? Thank you for your support.
own a tv; you do.
own a gun; you can't.
I know that if the governemnt comes through the door of my home they will have obtained a warrant from a judge based on probable cause. You don't because your government isn't so restrained.
I have 10 very specific individual rights enshrined in a document - you don't.
That (document is/those rights are) continuously under attack by people who say they want us to live under a governmetn like yours...and they are very anti-individual rights. What does that tell you?
So the Heritage Foundation can stick it's study. And as I've previously posted, the US is definately right behind the UK in restricting individual rights in favor of the State.
That said, I'm still a citizen and you're still a subject. I'm a politically sovereign entity under our form of government and your are not under yours.
Any questions?
Interesting...so now the State has competion from private TV? Hadn't heard that.
The problem with the Beeb is that 27,000 mostly left of centre shiny bums rely on it for their living.
If it is forced to live in the real world and earn its own living, there will be redundancies and those people and their families friends and sympathisers are unlikely to back the government which wields the axe.
Turkeys tend not to vote for Christmas.
It's a too typical tactic of people who don't have a leg to stand on to point to newer members sign on date, as if to say, you just started forming your opinions on the day you became a member, therefore they are without merit.
It seems a "newbie" is anyone who signed on at least one day after they did.
Strictly speaking British people don't need a licence to own a TV, just to watch the BBC. Its a tax or subscription, not a licence except by an accident of nomenclature.
Several court cases have been won by "licence-dodgers" on the basis that their TV was for watching non-BBC products. I will be joining their ranks when I've adequately researched the subject.
What a quote! You have encapsulated the problem concisely, as usual. :0)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.