Controversial Radio add in my small town.
- Thread starter lizcam
- Start date
Shawn R. L.
New member
The guarantee (while it lasts) applies to speech, weather it\'s pleasant of offensive. There is no guarantee to you being heard or to your hearing something you like or dislike......................if I understood your comment correctly.
The sheer stupidity of the ad is astounding:
\"this is America, folks — it’s called free speech. And none of us at Kieffe and Sons Ford are afraid to speak up.\"
This is America and they have their first amendment guarantee to free speech, which they choose to exercise by telling people who disagree with them to uh, not use their respective rights to free speech, and to also to completely disregard the establishment clause, another part of the 1st amendment. It\'s mind-boggling.
They absolutely have a right to say it though. I hope it costs them some customers.
\"this is America, folks — it’s called free speech. And none of us at Kieffe and Sons Ford are afraid to speak up.\"
This is America and they have their first amendment guarantee to free speech, which they choose to exercise by telling people who disagree with them to uh, not use their respective rights to free speech, and to also to completely disregard the establishment clause, another part of the 1st amendment. It\'s mind-boggling.
They absolutely have a right to say it though. I hope it costs them some customers.
The 86% Christian was actually accurate circa 1990(\"American Religious Identification Survey,\" by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, at: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf ), but if the trends seen in more recent polls are accurate, the number should be about 70% at the moment.
Infidel Castro
New member
Would the outlet have to provide an Insurance Policy that covers Acts of God? I\'d be pretty peeved buying from him if the insurance didn\'t pay out after a meteorite made my car its chosen spot upon the (likely globular) Earth\'s surface! :cussing:
Free speech is an interesting subject. It’s interesting and ironic because the “speech” is in effect an attempt to silence speech, “sit down and shut up.” It is an appeal to “majority” rule, a notion of democracy that the caused the founding fathers to consider the word a four letter word (which is why they established a republic).
We can debate the notion of “Under God” (which was placed in the pledge in the 20th century by a push from the Knights of Columbus) and “In God we trust,” which is a variation of something in an old piece of poetry set to music which ironically became our national anthem, (although we rarely sing past the first verse). We can debate the issue of a minority pushing their agenda through the courts over the will of a majority. But to use the issue of a simple majority to silence the minority … Mr. Speaker I rise to filibuster this notion!
And if you don’t agree with me … well I’ll yield the floo to you anyway … dough, I just dropped my filibuster and it broke.
We can debate the notion of “Under God” (which was placed in the pledge in the 20th century by a push from the Knights of Columbus) and “In God we trust,” which is a variation of something in an old piece of poetry set to music which ironically became our national anthem, (although we rarely sing past the first verse). We can debate the issue of a minority pushing their agenda through the courts over the will of a majority. But to use the issue of a simple majority to silence the minority … Mr. Speaker I rise to filibuster this notion!
And if you don’t agree with me … well I’ll yield the floo to you anyway … dough, I just dropped my filibuster and it broke.
I\'m not sure I understand this part...why does the ad advocate the disregard of the establishment clause? ???
And while, again, I don\'t support the approach used in the ad...I don\'t know if you can call it stupid marketing. Afterall, without it, none of us all across the globe would be talking about a little podunk ford dealership in the dry itchy rash of California, eh?
Whether it earns them business or not, it seems to be pretty effective marketing in terms of generating buzz.
evil tendencies
Cake or Death?
I\'ve been told that there is no bad publicity, but I would argue that there is annoying publicity.
I didn\'t call it stupid marketing. I was referring to the logical inconsistency of the argument presented. School prayer is an establishment clause issue. The inclusion of \"under God\" in the pledge of allegiance was added in the 1950\'s through pressure from a religious group during the height of the cold war, a time when politicians were falling over themselves to demonstrate their own piety in the face of the godless communists. It\'s another establishment clause issue.
Essentially the ad says:\"I\'m using my 1st amendment right to tell you not to use your first amendment right, so that I can violate other first amendment rights.\" That\'s what I think is stupid. Sorry if I was unclear.
Shawn R. L.
New member
:redface:duuuhh. Missed that. Thanx.
Ok, I think I understand what you were saying now. I\'m not sure I agree that either of the things you mentioned are establishment clause issues though since the clause simply states that there cannot be a law made that establishes religion, or prohibits the free practice thereof.
In fact, one might say that disallowing prayer in schools (or really anywhere else on the basis of law) would in itself be an establishment clause issue.
I don\'t believe that prayer should be mandated in schools (ie, it shouldn\'t be school organized) but I also don\'t believe that it should be prohibited.
And since \'in God we trust\' has nothing to do with law or even any specific religion (since most religions have their version of \'God\') I would also contend that there is no establishment clause problem there either.
I do agree though, as you have said, that the ad copy is ironically moronic.
