I-I'm just taking things without paying for th... In what twisted dictionary is that stealing?

Willow ,'Showtime'


Natter 63: Life after PuppyCam  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


Barb - Apr 28, 2009 10:43:30 am PDT #17111 of 30000
“Not dead yet!”

Have people seen this? Florida Reveals Tasteful New License Plate

::feels intense urge to apologize to the rest of the U.S.::


Gudanov - Apr 28, 2009 10:47:19 am PDT #17112 of 30000
Coding and Sleeping

Have people seen this? Florida Reveals Tasteful New License Plate

Is the design from the state or is it from a private group that pays the state to make the plate available? I don't really think there's an issue if the latter is the case as long as it is treated like any other vanity plate design.


Kathy A - Apr 28, 2009 10:53:06 am PDT #17113 of 30000
We're very stretchy. - Connie Neil

There's a lawsuit happening now about Illinois' refusal to issue "Choose Life" plates. It'll be interesting to see what the verdict will be.


Dana - Apr 28, 2009 10:56:21 am PDT #17114 of 30000
I haven't trusted science since I saw the film "Flubber."

Okay, step one. I think the dog is afraid of the tile floor.


Laga - Apr 28, 2009 10:58:45 am PDT #17115 of 30000
You should know I'm a big deal in the Resistance.

oh poor goggie. I've seen tile-floor fear on Dog Whisperer. Cesar almost didn't have the strength to force a great dane across an apartment lobby. But they all got over it eventually.


NoiseDesign - Apr 28, 2009 11:00:02 am PDT #17116 of 30000
Our wings are not tired

The money that you pay for the plates goes as a donation to the organization behind it in the state of florida. They also have "Choose Life", "Family First", and "Family Values" plates all of which direct money to conservative Christian groups. It does raise some questions about separation of church and state. They have to go through a state approval process before they plates and donations are set up for purchase through the DMV. Really the question is have non-christian groups had any issues getting their donations/plates approved in the state of Florida.


tommyrot - Apr 28, 2009 11:01:10 am PDT #17117 of 30000
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

Really the question is have non-christian groups had any issues getting their donations/plates approved in the state of Florida.

Yeah, that's the question. Would they allow FSM plates? With money going to pirate charities?


Trudy Booth - Apr 28, 2009 11:06:59 am PDT #17118 of 30000
Greece's financial crisis threatens to take down all of Western civilization - a civilization they themselves founded. A rather tragic irony - which is something they also invented. - Jon Stewart

You should apply and see [link]


Connie Neil - Apr 28, 2009 11:10:07 am PDT #17119 of 30000
brillig

With money going to pirate charities?

Be sure to specify which pirate charities. I'm sure there are worthy Classic Pirate recreationists about.


Sparky1 - Apr 28, 2009 11:11:13 am PDT #17120 of 30000
Librarian Warlord

The NYT just had a sidebar on Monday about the vanity plate questions that might go before the Supreme Court: [link]

Illinois says it should be allowed to decide what goes on its license plates because they convey government rather than private speech. If that is right, the First Amendment drops out of the equation, as the government is free to say what it likes.

But most of the appeals courts to consider “Choose Life” license plates have ruled that specialty plates convey the positions of the motorists involved. The appeals court in Chicago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, ruled against Illinois on this point. Specialty plates, the court said, are “mobile billboards” for “organizations and like-minded vehicle owners.”

But a Supreme Court decision in February, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, may have complicated matters. The court ruled that a Utah city did not have to allow a minor religion to erect a monument to its Seven Aphorisms near a Ten Commandments monument in a public park, which for many purposes is a classic public forum open to all sorts of viewpoints.

The court acknowledged that the government could not discriminate among speakers in the park and among people handing out leaflets there. But permanent monuments, whether donated by private groups or commissioned by the government, are different, the court said. They are government speech.