(08-31-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Interesting.

(08-31-2015 08:02 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Interesting.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, but if it's that some state governments support a pro-life agenda, then you're absolutely correct. Legislation passed at the state level shows that all the time, and it's no secret that if not for Roe v. Wade abortion would be illegal in many states.

(08-31-2015 08:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:02 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Interesting.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, but if it's that some state governments support a pro-life agenda, then you're absolutely correct. Legislation passed at the state level shows that all the time, and it's no secret that if not for Roe v. Wade abortion would be illegal in many states.

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Approved doesn't mean support either.

(08-31-2015 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Approved doesn't mean support either.

You are correct. It actually means "approval."

(08-31-2015 08:15 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:02 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Interesting.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, but if it's that some state governments support a pro-life agenda, then you're absolutely correct. Legislation passed at the state level shows that all the time, and it's no secret that if not for Roe v. Wade abortion would be illegal in many states.

Wow. I never realized that many states were pro-Chioce. Good for them.

(08-31-2015 08:15 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:02 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Interesting.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, but if it's that some state governments support a pro-life agenda, then you're absolutely correct. Legislation passed at the state level shows that all the time, and it's no secret that if not for Roe v. Wade abortion would be illegal in many states.

What exactly is your point?

(08-31-2015 09:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:15 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:02 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Interesting.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, but if it's that some state governments support a pro-life agenda, then you're absolutely correct. Legislation passed at the state level shows that all the time, and it's no secret that if not for Roe v. Wade abortion would be illegal in many states.

What exactly is your point?

Should be obvious based on your prior dumb*** comments.
"Implicit government support"... Lmfao... Yeah, ok.

(08-31-2015 08:42 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Approved doesn't mean support either.

You are correct. It actually means "approval."

No. It simply means approved. Nothing more, nothing less.

(08-31-2015 09:08 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:15 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:02 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Interesting.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, but if it's that some state governments support a pro-life agenda, then you're absolutely correct. Legislation passed at the state level shows that all the time, and it's no secret that if not for Roe v. Wade abortion would be illegal in many states.

What exactly is your point?

Should be obvious based on your prior dumb*** comments.

It honestly isn't, I've addressed what I thought was your point but your response of doubling down on the license tags implies you thought that posting one in the first place is somehow relevant to my point when it clearly isn't. If you'd be so kind as to spell it out for me instead of rudely evading doing that, we could perhaps get somewhere.

Still want one of the gun grabbers to tell me which proposed law or which one of their idiotic ideas would have prevented this shooting.

(08-31-2015 09:15 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:42 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Approved doesn't mean support either.

You are correct. It actually means "approval."

No. It simply means approved. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, it also means it conforms to a standard set that limits things of an outwardly offensive nature. Hence why there are no licenses with pornographic images or images of a graphic nature, plus I think they tend to be limited to organizations set up as non-profits though I'm not certain about that.

(08-31-2015 09:15 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:42 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

Approved doesn't mean support either.

You are correct. It actually means "approval."

No. It simply means approved. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you serious, Clark?

His post was in response to your reply to me. As he said, it's obvious.

If we learned anything from this thread it's that state governments do not hire graphic designers to design license plates. Seriously, Hawaii, was Photoshop so expensive you had to rely on Word to cut and paste an image?

(08-31-2015 09:18 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  Are you serious, Clark?

Yes ma'am.

This gets into the deeper topic of what is legal versus what is ethical/moral. They are not the same things, and should never be confused. The guardrails for ethical/moral standards should be much more narrow than those for legal behavior, and the closer these two standards approach, the less "gray" area of personal behavior than can be influenced positively by religion, family structure, etc. Furthermore, legality does not imply societal acceptance; rather, legality for most folks implies that certain behaviors are not punishable by law, even if ethically or morally taboo by a large percentage of the population.

Prostitution is legal in some locales in nevada. This does not imply that most folks in those locations are "pro-prostitution" and need to be educated on a pro-prostitution lifestyle as an acceptable lifestyle choice. However, the LGBTxxxxx gang certainly has taken the legality of gay marriages to imply societal acceptance to these lifestyles, confusing the guardrails of legality and moral/ethical behavior. Currently, they are overstepping their mandate to try to force acceptance of this lifestyle on a population that currently is only obligated to tolerate it. This overstepping will ultimately be halted, hopefully, and balance restored.

(08-31-2015 09:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still want one of the gun grabbers to tell me which proposed law or which one of their idiotic ideas would have prevented this shooting.

+1