ok, i can't post here without u robots flaming my ass

anyways

owning land is a privilege, not only that, but what you do on the land or use it for is a privilege also.

Did you know having billboards / signs is illegal on your land (without permission) thats 100 miles from the nearest person, ILLEGAL


Everything is regulated to the point where it does NOT involve safety of others and yourselves.
When I own land, I should be able to do anything i fucking want with it, you all obviously forgot eminent domain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain )  which allows local or federal governments to seize control of your property yet compensate you.  Of course, it has been abused severely. 
How would you like to be FORCED to move out of your house so that the city can then give the land to a big company?  You would think you can refuse to sell land in a country such as this, but thats incorrect.  Then you have to spend tens of thousands fighting in court just so they don't forcefully take over your house.

Lets see here, did you know companies are restricted on how big their signs can be?  Its based on how big the store is.  Not only that, but windows can't be covered with anything really.  You get fined for having graffiti on commercial property.
Fined for having different colored paints on YOUR wall.

Of course most of you don't realize a thing about government.  Lobbying at congress, if you decide not to have a R or a D next to your name if you get in congress, you get nothing in lobbying and your quickly swept out.  Funny how everysingle person is a R or D. 

Your votes also mean SHIT, in no election by constituents has 1 vote changed an election.  Some dickface told me about a vote of the countries offical language, german or english.  And it won english by 1 vote, that was a vote between elected officials and 13 people, not fucking 10 million people.  Anyways if an election won by 1 vote there would be a total vote recount.  My advice is don't waste your time to vote at all so you don't regret voting a shithead into office.  Play CSS for 1 hour or vote? css...

Lets not forget about censorship, I pay fucking $50 for SUBSCRIPTION television and don't get boobs and pussy during certain hours because its against the LAW.  Government again regulating commercial enterprise based on feelings, I can pay for a fucking dildo, yet i can't pay to SEE a fucking boob on tv?

there goes that kids might see boobs on TV argument again. 
Guess what?  [u]You don't HAVE to own a television[/u], so if you don't own a television then your kids won't be seeing boobs and pussies.  But since all these fucking dickheads own big widescreen TVS and subscription service, they assume EVERYONE has it also and impose these BULLSHIT laws based on illogical thinking.

To put this in perspective, The FCC is putting restrictions on what an object that you pay for (TV) can give to you via service that you pay for (cable), is no different that buying an object that you pay for (counterstrike source) and giving you a service that you pay for thats intended for people over the age of 18, therefore it should / can be censored because it gives you content that is inappropriate for minors.    Don't understand? read it again another 5 more times.



2nd paragraph of this link  http://www.topsatelliteradio.com/satellite-radio-fcc-regulation.html

[quote]The latest ruling by the Federal Communications Commission appears to suggest the answer is "true." The decision stems from an incident last year at the Golden Globe Awards, when U2 singer Bono said the F-word and NBC carried it live. The FCC investigated and said the indecency rule did not apply because Bono used the word as an adjective, "to emphasize an exclamation." This spring, however, after the furor over the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl, the commission overturned the Bono decision. The F-word, the FCC said, is indecent and profane regardless of context.[/quote]

see how the FCC changed their decision based on feelings?  Then they give these bullshit explanations on why they made their decisions to make it look legally justified.



Often court judgments in controversial issues (ones that are right and wrong debatable) are based on personal preferences/feelings. 

There is also selective enforcement of laws partially because there are so many.  Which means if a cop doesn't like you, he'll give you a ticket for not using a turn signal when pulling over AND a speeding ticket, instead of just giving you a speeding ticket.


Lets not forget lawsuits, no logic at all.
If a dumbshit employee lets say gets in an at fault car accident while delivering pizza (without insurance in a state that allows no insurance), the company is liable of course.  There employee is not at fault for the car accident, the company caused the car accident and therefore can be sued.  Sounds logical?


http://www.kcra.com/news/4284684/detail.html
[quote]Jim Sanford (pictured, left), of Sacramento, has filed 121 ADA lawsuits in three years.[/quote]
look, this dickface is not working by sueing everyone.


A handicapped person goes into a bathroom that has toilet paper to high beyond the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Requirements, the company get sued for $10,000 because some fucker can't reach the toilet paper in a bathroom. 

Lets see what happens when your not handicapped and the toilet paper ran out which would cause the same effect as not being able to reach for the toilet paper.  You can't sue for ANYTHING because your not handicapped, only handicapped people are allowed to sue peoples asses off.

Sounds fair?

[quote]
Did you know having billboards / signs is illegal on your land (without permission) thats 100 miles from the nearest person, ILLEGAL[/quote]

Because what're you doing is advertising, and is likely to infringe on the view/lawn of neighbors. Billboards are pretty fucking huge y'know

[quote]
Everything is regulated to the point where it does NOT involve safety of others and yourselves.
When I own land, I should be able to do anything i fucking want with it, you all obviously forgot eminent domain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain )  which allows local or federal governments to seize control of your property yet compensate you.  Of course, it has been abused severely.

How would you like to be FORCED to move out of your house so that the city can then give the land to a big company?  You would think you can refuse to sell land in a country such as this, but thats incorrect.  Then you have to spend tens of thousands fighting in court just so they don't forcefully take over your house.[/quote]

There are abuses and exploitation of loopholes of many laws, but it doesn't occur often. Isolated incidents like that aren't good for anyone, but it doesn't do good to exaggerate and whine without doing anything about it. You also forgot to mention that the government is required to pay you the market value of the home.

[quote]Lets see here, did you know companies are restricted on how big their signs can be?  Its based on how big the store is.  Not only that, but windows can't be covered with anything really.  You get fined for having graffiti on commercial property.
Fined for having different colored paints on YOUR wall.[/quote]

Link? Kmart, Best Buys, Albertsons, Rite Aid, Safeway, ... literally cover their windows so much that it's difficult to see inside.

[quote]
Of course most of you don't realize a thing about government.  Lobbying at congress, if you decide not to have a R or a D next to your name if you get in congress, you get nothing in lobbying and your quickly swept out.  Funny how everysingle person is a R or D.[/quote]

Do you know nothing about the American political system?

[quote]
Your votes also mean SHIT, in no election by constituents has 1 vote changed an election.  Some dickface told me about a vote of the countries offical language, german or english.  And it won english by 1 vote, that was a vote between elected officials and 13 people, not fucking 10 million people.  Anyways if an election won by 1 vote there would be a total vote recount.  My advice is don't waste your time to vote at all so you don't regret voting a shithead into office.  Play CSS for 1 hour or vote? css...[/quote]

It hasn't come close to 1 vote, so what're you ranting about? If the popular vote for party A (candidate x) has a majority over party B (candidate y), the electoral voter for that district(not sure  how parts of the state is divided, so I'll say district) is obligated (though not required) to vote for candidate x and the VP that is on that ticket. The logic here is that the lay public is easily deceived and therefore cannot be trusted to make intelligent and thorough decisions.

[quote]
Lets not forget about censorship, I pay fucking $50 for SUBSCRIPTION television and don't get boobs and pussy during certain hours because its against the LAW.  Government again regulating commercial enterprise based on feelings, I can pay for a fucking dildo, yet i can't pay to SEE a fucking boob on tv?[/quote]

Isn't that what the whole Triple Play concept is for? Pay some more and you can get all the porn you want. No bitching required!

[quote]
there goes that kids might see boobs on TV argument again.
Guess what?  You don't HAVE to own a television, so if you don't own a television then your kids won't be seeing boobs and pussies.  But since all these fucking dickheads own big widescreen TVS and subscription service, they assume EVERYONE has it also and impose these BULLSHIT laws based on illogical thinking.[/quote]

Minors make up a good portion of viewers, especially at certain times of the day. The viewers are not the ones who impose laws, it's the legislation.

[quote]
see how the FCC changed their decision based on feelings?  Then they give these bullshit explanations on why they made their decisions to make it look legally justified.[/quote]

Bono swore on television and Janet showed some boobie. It's illogical to compare apples to oranges.

[quote]
Often court judgments in controversial issues (ones that are right and wrong debatable) are based on personal preferences/feelings.[/quote]

That's how trial by jury works. You win some and you lose some.

[quote]
There is also selective enforcement of laws partially because there are so many.  Which means if a cop doesn't like you, he'll give you a ticket for not using a turn signal when pulling over AND a speeding ticket, instead of just giving you a speeding ticket.[/quote]

No shit? Don't fuck with a cop, dumbass.

[quote]
Lets not forget lawsuits, no logic at all.
If a dumbshit employee lets say gets in an at fault car accident while delivering pizza (without insurance in a state that allows no insurance), the company is liable of course.  There employee is not at fault for the car accident, the company caused the car accident and therefore can be sued.  Sounds logical?[/quote]

What kind of idiot company doesn't purchase insurance for a company-owned vehicle? What state doesn't allow people to have insurance? The company did indeed cause the car accident (as the driver/employee is a representative of the forementioned company) and is therefore liable for damages and other crap. Big surprise.

Are you retarded?

[quote]
http://www.kcra.com/news/4284684/detail.html
Jim Sanford (pictured, left), of Sacramento, has filed 121 ADA lawsuits in three years.
look, this dickface is not working by sueing everyone.[/quote]

I agree that most lawsuits are mostly BS, but abolishing them or making stringent regulations on how they're filed isn't going to help anyone.

[quote]
A handicapped person goes into a bathroom that has toilet paper to high beyond the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Requirements, the company get sued for $10,000 because some fucker can't reach the toilet paper in a bathroom.[/quote]

What's with you and making up unlikely scenarios? You like to do it a lot.

[quote]
Lets see what happens when your not handicapped and the toilet paper ran out which would cause the same effect as not being able to reach for the toilet paper.  You can't sue for ANYTHING because your not handicapped, only handicapped people are allowed to sue peoples asses off.
Sounds fair?  These people don't deserve to live.[/quote]

Oh no, you're out of toilet paper. Check the dispenser before you plunk your ass down and ask for  some.

We don't "flame" you for no reason; it's your ignorance that earns it.  Besides, you don't even seem to consider why some of the laws are there to begin with; you only consider the repercussions which aren't really even justified, seeing as how these are isolated incidents.

Edit: <3, topaz!  :)

replaced are you even a US citizen? it almost sounds like youre just reading about these topics on wikipedia, or google and then coming onto this forum just to make posts about it. you really dont know what youre talking about.

[quote author=topaz link=topic=16150.msg162797#msg162797 date=1167013765]
Because what're you doing is advertising
[/quote]

No, I didn't say that the billboard would advertise something and nothing is wrong with advertising.  you want no free speech to advertise?

[quote]
and is likely to infringe on the view/lawn of neighbors. Billboards are pretty fucking huge y'know
[/quote]

A tree can infringe on the view/lawn of neighbors, yet does that make it illegal?  You make absolutely no sense.

[quote]
There are abuses and exploitation of loopholes of many laws, but it doesn't occur often. Isolated incidents like that aren't good for anyone, but it doesn't do good to exaggerate and whine without doing anything about it. You also forgot to mention that the government is required to pay you the market value of the home.[/quote]

exaggerated? Did you know I know people who own businesses and have been hit with these lawsuits and settled for thousands?

[quote]Link? Kmart, Best Buys, Albertsons, Rite Aid, Safeway, ... literally cover their windows so much that it's difficult to see inside.[/quote]

A certian percentage of windows is allowed to be covered below a certain height, other than that you can't cover the window. (varies by city)

http://www.normal.org/code/15_17.asp

[quote]Plant Species. The selection of plant materials shall be based on the Town of Normal’s climate and site conditions with a goal of promoting xeriscaping principles. Plant material shall be selected for interest in its structure, texture, and color and for its ultimate growth. Plants that are indigenous to the area and others that will be hardy, harmonious to the design, and of good appearance shall be used. Plant diversity is required for the health of the overall landscaped area.[/quote]

Does being forced to put these plants in the ground sound like freedom? 
I regret people would die to protect a shitty country.

[quote]Do you know nothing about the American political system?[/quote]
no

[quote]It hasn't come close to 1 vote, so what're you ranting about? If the popular vote for party A (candidate x) has a majority over party B (candidate y), the electoral voter for that district(not sure  how parts of the state is divided, so I'll say district) is obligated (though not required) to vote for candidate x and the VP that is on that ticket. The logic here is that the lay public is easily deceived and therefore cannot be trusted to make intelligent and thorough decisions.[/quote]

I'm saying that you shouldn't waste time standing in line to put a piece of paper in a box.

[quote]Isn't that what the whole Triple Play concept is for? Pay some more and you can get all the porn you want. No bitching required![/quote]

Your missing the whole point, when you subscribe for something, it should not have the same censorship on it if it were publicly broad casted.

[quote]Minors make up a good portion of viewers, especially at certain times of the day. The viewers are not the ones who impose laws, it's the legislation.[/quote]

I didn't say that viewers are the ones who impose laws and legislation does not impose laws dumbshit, law enforcement imposes laws.  It doesn't matter if the portion of viewers is 100% minors, subscription TV is a service you PAY for, radio is not.

Lets say you PAY to go online, does that mean censorship rules apply to not allow boobs and pussies appear on screen?

[quote]Bono swore on television and Janet showed some boobie. It's illogical to compare apples to oranges.[/quote]

Correct, its illogical for the FCC to compare apples and oranges and making it unlawful to swear right after Janet showed boobs.

[quote]That's how trial by jury works. You win some and you lose some.[/quote]

Its not trial by jury, its appointed officials that discuss laws to put in place.

[quote]No shit? Don't fuck with a cop, dumbass.[/quote]

What if the cop gives you extra shit because your black / short / young, exactly what selective enforcement allows.

[quote]What kind of idiot company doesn't purchase insurance for a company-owned vehicle? What state doesn't allow people to have insurance? The company did indeed cause the car accident (as the driver/employee is a representative of the forementioned company) and is therefore liable for damages and other crap. Big surprise.[/quote]

So if I work for pizza hut and drive shitty and accidentally kill someone, my mistake means that the company made a mistake?  That makes no sense.  The driver/employee is not a representative of the forementioned company, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=representative .

And also if a representative working for the company does something illegal (commit fraud), does that make the company unlawful or the "representative"?

[quote]
Are you retarded?
[/quote]

no

[quote]
I agree that most lawsuits are mostly BS, but abolishing them or making stringent regulations on how they're filed isn't going to help anyone.[/quote]

I didn't suggest abolishing them or making stringent regulations on them, I think they have merit but for far less amount of money.  Instead of a $10,000 lawsuit because the handicap parking lines are cut up, it should be about $10.  American with disability lawsuits almost always happen without telling the company to fix something before suing (purposely doing this to collect money).  If California didn't get the damn liberal attorney general again, businesses would have 120 days to comply before being liable, etc...

[quote]What's with you and making up unlikely scenarios? You like to do it a lot.[/quote]

What scenario was unlikely?

[quote]Oh no, you're out of toilet paper. Check the dispenser before you plunk your ass down and ask for  some.[/quote]

Thats right, a handicap person can sue and the defendant almost always settles for thousands just because the bathroom for example doesn't comply with the Americans with disabilities act.  The toilet paper dispenser might be to high for the handicap to reach so instead of telling the store to lower it he doesn't take a shit and sues for 10k. 


IF YOU DON'T comply with A SINGLE thing here you can be sued your ass off.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg3a.html#Anchor-Appendix-52467

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/images/reg3a/fig30.gif

[quote]

4.19.3 Clear Floor Space. A clear floor space 30 in by 48 in (760 mm by 1220 mm) complying with 4.2.4 shall be provided in front of a lavatory to allow forward approach. Such clear floor space shall adjoin or overlap an accessible route and shall extend a maximum of 19 in (485 mm) underneath the lavatory (see Fig. 32).

4.21.3 Seat. A seat shall be provided in shower stalls 36 in by 36 in (915 mm by 915 mm) and shall be as shown in Fig. 36. The seat shall be mounted 17 in to 19 in (430 mm to 485 mm) from the bathroom floor and shall extend the full depth of the stall. In a 36 in by 36 in (915 mm by 915 mm) shower stall, the seat shall be on the wall opposite the controls. Where a fixed seat is provided in a 30 in by 60 in minimum (760 mm by 1525 mm) shower stall, it shall be a folding type and shall be mounted on the wall adjacent to the controls as shown in Fig. 57. The structural strength of seats and their attachments shall comply with 4.26.3.

(a) Reach Depth Not More Than 10 in (255 mm). Where the reach depth to the operable parts of all controls as measured from the vertical plane perpendicular to the edge of the unobstructed clear floor space at the farthest protrusion of the automated teller machine or surround is not more than 10 in (255 mm), the maximum height above the finished floor or grade shall be 54 in (1370 mm).

(b) Reach Depth More Than 10 in (255 mm). Where the reach depth to the operable parts of any control as measured from the vertical plane perpendicular to the edge of the unobstructed clear floor space at the farthest protrusion of the automated teller machine or surround is more than 10 in (255 mm), the maximum height above the finished floor or grade shall be as follows:

A4.19 Lavatories and Mirrors.

A4.19.6 Mirrors. If mirrors are to be used by both ambulatory people and wheelchair users, then they must be at least 74 in (1880 mm) high at their topmost edge. A single full length mirror can accommodate all people, including children.

A4.21 Shower Stalls.

A4.21.1 General. Shower stalls that are 36 in by 36 in (915 mm by 915 mm) wide provide additional safety to people who have difficulty maintaining balance because all grab bars and walls are within easy reach. Seated people use the walls of 36 in by 36 in (915 mm by 915 mm) showers for back support. Shower stalls that are 60 in (1525 mm) wide and have no curb may increase usability of a bathroom by wheelchair users because the shower area provides additional maneuvering space.

A4.22 Toilet Rooms.

A4.22.3 Clear Floor Space. In many small facilities, single-user restrooms may be the only facilities provided for all building users. In addition, the guidelines allow the use of "unisex" or "family" accessible toilet rooms in alterations when technical infeasibility can be demonstrated. Experience has shown that the provision of accessible "unisex" or single-user restrooms is a reasonable way to provide access for wheelchair users and any attendants, especially when attendants are of the opposite sex. Since these facilities have proven so useful, it is often considered advantageous to install a "unisex" toilet room in new facilities in addition to making the multi-stall restrooms accessible, especially in shopping malls, large auditoriums, and convention centers.

Figure 28 (section 4.16) provides minimum clear floor space dimensions for toilets in accessible "unisex" toilet rooms. The dotted lines designate the minimum clear floor space, depending on the direction of approach, required for wheelchair users to transfer onto the water closet. The dimensions of 48 in (1220 mm) and 60 in (1525 mm), respectively, correspond to the space required for the two common transfer approaches utilized by wheelchair users (see Fig. A6). It is important to keep in mind that the placement of the lavatory to the immediate side of the water closet will preclude the side approach transfer illustrated in Figure A6(b). To accommodate the side transfer, the space adjacent to the water closet must remain clear of obstruction for 42 in (1065 mm) from the centerline of the toilet (Figure 28) and the lavatory must not be located within this clear space. A turning circle or T-turn, the clear floor space at the lavatory, and maneuvering space at the door must be considered when determining the possible wall locations. A privacy latch or other accessible means of ensuring privacy during use should be provided at the door.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. In new construction, accessible single-user restrooms may be desirable in some situations because they can accommodate a wide variety of building users. However, they cannot be used in lieu of making the multi-stall toilet rooms accessible as required.

2. Where strict compliance to the guidelines for accessible toilet facilities is technically infeasible in the alteration of existing facilities, accessible "unisex" toilets are a reasonable alternative.

3. In designing accessible single-user restrooms, the provisions of adequate space to allow a side transfer will provide accommodation to the largest number of wheelchair users.

A4.23 Bathrooms, Bathing Facilities, and Shower Rooms.

A4.23.3 Clear Floor Space. Figure A7 shows two possible configurations of a toilet room with a roll-in shower. The specific shower shown is designed to fit exactly within the dimensions of a standard bathtub. Since the shower does not have a lip, the floor space can be used for required maneuvering space. This would permit a toilet room to be smaller than would be permitted with a bathtub and still provide enough floor space to be considered accessible. This design can provide accessibility in facilities where space is at a premium (i.e., hotels and medical care facilities). The alternate roll-in shower (Fig. 57b) also provides sufficient room for the "T-turn" and does not require plumbing to be on more than one wall.

A4.23.9 Medicine Cabinets. Other alternatives for storing medical and personal care items are very useful to disabled people. Shelves, drawers, and floor-mounted cabinets can be provided within the reach ranges of disabled people.

A4.26 Handrails, Grab Bars, and Tub and Shower Seats.

A4.26.1 General. Many disabled people rely heavily upon grab bars and handrails to maintain balance and prevent serious falls. Many people brace their forearms between supports and walls to give them more leverage and stability in maintaining balance or for lifting. The grab bar clearance of 1-1/2 in (38 mm) required in this guideline is a safety clearance to prevent injuries resulting from arms slipping through the openings. It also provides adequate gripping room.

A4.26.2 Size and Spacing of Grab Bars and Handrails. This specification allows for alternate shapes of handrails as long as they allow an opposing grip similar to that provided by a circular section of 1-1/4 in to 1-1/2 in (32 mm to 38 mm).

A4.27 Controls and Operating Mechanisms.

A4.27.3 Height. Fig. A8 further illustrates mandatory and advisory control mounting height provisions for typical equipment.

Electrical receptacles installed to serve individual appliances and not intended for regular or frequent use by building occupants are not required to be mounted within the specified reach ranges. Examples would be receptacles installed specifically for wall-mounted clocks, refrigerators, and microwave ovens.

A4.28 Alarms.

A4.28.2 Audible Alarms. Audible emergency signals must have an intensity and frequency that can attract the attention of individuals who have partial hearing loss. People over 60 years of age generally have difficulty perceiving frequencies higher than 10,000 Hz. An alarm signal which has a periodic element to its signal, such as single stroke bells (clang-pause-clang- pause), hi-low (up-down-up-down) and fast whoop (on-off-on-off) are best. Avoid continuous or reverberating tones. Select a signal which has a sound characterized by three or four clear tones without a great deal of "noise" in between.

A4.28.3 Visual Alarms. The specifications in this section do not preclude the use of zoned or coded alarm systems.

A4.28.4 Auxiliary Alarms. Locating visual emergency alarms in rooms where persons who are deaf may work or reside alone can ensure that they will always be warned when an emergency alarm is activated. To be effective, such devices must be located and oriented so that they will spread signals and reflections throughout a space or raise the overall light level sharply. However, visual alarms alone are not necessarily the best means to alert sleepers. A study conducted by Underwriters Laboratory (UL) concluded that a flashing light more than seven times brighter was required (110 candela v. 15 candela, at the same distance) to awaken sleepers as was needed to alert awake subjects in a normal daytime illuminated room.

For hotel and other rooms where people are likely to be asleep, a signal-activated vibrator placed between mattress and box spring or under a pillow was found by UL to be much more effective in alerting sleepers. Many readily available devices are sound-activated so that they could respond to an alarm clock, clock radio, wake-up telephone call or room smoke detector. Activation by a building alarm system can either be accomplished by a separate circuit activating an auditory alarm which would, in turn, trigger the vibrator or by a signal transmitted through the ordinary 110-volt outlet. Transmission of signals through the power line is relatively simple and is the basis of common, inexpensive remote light control systems sold in many department and electronic stores for home use. So-called "wireless" intercoms operate on the same principal.

A4.29 Detectable Warnings.

A4.29.2 Detectable Warnings on Walking Surfaces. The material used to provide contrast should contrast by at least 70%.

Contrast in percent is determined by:

Contrast = [(B1 - B2)/B1] x 100

where B1 = light reflectance value (LRV) of the lighter area and B2 = light reflectance value (LRV) of the darker area.

Note that in any application both white and black are never absolute; thus, B1 never equals 100 and B2 is always greater than 0.


[/quote]
[quote]
Following a compliance review or investigation under Sec.36.502, or at any other time in his or her discretion, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court if the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that --

(a) Any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the Act or this part; or

(b) Any person or group of persons has been discriminated against in violation of the Act or this part and the discrimination raises an issue of general public importance.

[/quote]

how about read the entire thing and then recall every detail.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
No, I didn't say that the billboard would advertise something and nothing is wrong with advertising.  you want no free speech to advertise?
[/quote]

I want free speech, but I don't want some idiot a house over advertising junk like radio stations ads or whatever movie is coming in x days.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
A tree can infringe on the view/lawn of neighbors, yet does that make it illegal?  You make absolutely no sense.[/quote]

A tree doesn't display the political and social leanings of the homeowner.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
exaggerated? Did you know I know people who own businesses and have been hit with these lawsuits and settled for thousands?[/quote]

I don't see you as a people person... unless you're a government hating hippie.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
A certian percentage of windows is allowed to be covered below a certain height, other than that you can't cover the window. (varies by city)

http://www.normal.org/code/15_17.asp

[quote]Plant Species. The selection of plant materials shall be based on the Town of Normal’s climate and site conditions with a goal of promoting xeriscaping principles. Plant material shall be selected for interest in its structure, texture, and color and for its ultimate growth. Plants that are indigenous to the area and others that will be hardy, harmonious to the design, and of good appearance shall be used. Plant diversity is required for the health of the overall landscaped area.[/quote]

Does being forced to put these plants in the ground sound like freedom? 
I regret people would die to protect a shitty country.[/quote]

Like I said before... using exaggerated situations and consequences (like the above... town of Normal, Illinois? where the fuck is that?) to argue your point doesn't work. It's ridiculous and shows how petty you are.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
[quote]Do you know nothing about the American political system?[/quote]
no[/quote]

It was a dumb question. I shouldn't have asked.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
I'm saying that you shouldn't waste time standing in line to put a piece of paper in a box.[/quote]

Of course you'd think that way, you'd prefer to play video games rather than take responsibility and participate in your government.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
Your missing the whole point, when you subscribe for something, it should not have the same censorship on it if it were publicly broad casted.[/quote]

Maybe you're subscribing to the wrong services from the wrong corporation?

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
I didn't say that viewers are the ones who impose laws and legislation does not impose laws dumbshit, law enforcement imposes laws.  It doesn't matter if the portion of viewers is 100% minors, subscription TV is a service you PAY for, radio is not.[/quote]

Law enforcement doesn't impose laws you fucking retard... have you heard of the "State Legislature"? How about the "Legislative Branch"? You pay for subscription TV to watch TV, not to get pornography.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
Lets say you PAY to go online, does that mean censorship rules apply to not allow boobs and pussies appear on screen?[/quote]

That's why porn websites are required to tell you that it's illegal for you to view inappropriate content if you're not of age.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
Correct, its illogical for the FCC to compare apples and oranges and making it unlawful to swear right after Janet showed boobs.[/quote]

Why are you so desperate to hear people swear on television?

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
Its not trial by jury, its appointed officials that discuss laws to put in place.[/quote]

You're talking about cases and precedence. It's not about laws.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
What if the cop gives you extra shit because your black / short / young, exactly what selective enforcement allows.[/quote]

Then you report them like the good citizen you are.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
So if I work for pizza hut and drive shitty and accidentally kill someone, my mistake means that the company made a mistake?  That makes no sense.  The driver/employee is not a representative of the forementioned company, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=representative .[/quote]

You fucked up and the company will hold you liable, but ultimately its not on your head. The employee is most definitely representative of the company.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
And also if a representative working for the company does something illegal (commit fraud), does that make the company unlawful or the "representative"?[/quote]

You need to work on your english a bit. It reflects poorly on the company as a whole, obviously (see: HP spying scandal).

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
I didn't suggest abolishing them or making stringent regulations on them, I think they have merit but for far less amount of money.  Instead of a $10,000 lawsuit because the handicap parking lines are cut up, it should be about $10.  American with disability lawsuits almost always happen without telling the company to fix something before suing (purposely doing this to collect money).  If California didn't get the damn liberal attorney general again, businesses would have 120 days to comply before being liable, etc...[/quote]

If you make the penalties much less harsh, the corporation isn't likely to care. Then where will the handicapped people be?

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
What scenario was unlikely?
[/quote]

Like all the ones in the past three threads you've created?

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
Thats right, a handicap person can sue and the defendant almost always settles for thousands just because the bathroom for example doesn't comply with the Americans with disabilities act.  The toilet paper dispenser might be to high for the handicap to reach so instead of telling the store to lower it he doesn't take a shit and sues for 10k.


IF YOU DON'T comply with A SINGLE thing here your liable for 10,000 suit.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg3a.html#Anchor-Appendix-52467

[quote]4.16.3* Height. The height of water closets shall be 17 in to 19 in (430 mm to 485 mm), measured to the top of the toilet seat (see Fig. 29(b)). Seats shall not be sprung to return to a lifted position.

4.16.4* Grab Bars. Grab bars for water closets not located in stalls shall comply with 4.26 and Fig. 29. The grab bar behind the water closet shall be 36 in (915 mm) minimum.

4.16.5* Flush Controls. Flush controls shall be hand operated or automatic and shall comply with 4.27.4. Controls for flush valves shall be mounted on the wide side of toilet areas no more than 44 in (1120 mm) above the floor.[/quote]

how about read the entire thing and then recall every detail.
[/quote]

Yeah... somehow I doubt a judge is going to allow that to happen. A couple, yes, but you have to prove you've taken damages or suffered in some way.

[quote author=topaz link=topic=16150.msg162805#msg162805 date=1167029826]
I want free speech, but I don't want some idiot a house over advertising junk like radio stations ads or whatever movie is coming in x days.[/quote]

So, I don't want you to not want some idiot a house over advertising junk like radio stations ads or whatever movie is coming in x days.  Your point?  how would you be in distress from someone a house over advertising?  I don't understand...

[quote]A tree doesn't display the political and social leanings of the homeowner.[/quote]

Nor does a sign, are you against people expressing political and/or social leanings?

[quote]I don't see you as a people person... unless you're a government hating hippie.
[/quote]

That statement makes no sense.

[quote]Like I said before... using exaggerated situations and consequences (like the above... town of Normal, Illinois? where the fuck is that?) to argue your point doesn't work. It's ridiculous and shows how petty you are.[/quote]

Almost every single city has absurd laws, I didn't refer to a situation or consequence to the statement you replied to.

[quote]Of course you'd think that way, you'd prefer to play video games rather than take responsibility and participate in your government.[/quote]

What responsibility is there to take?  Whats the point to participating through election when your 1 vote means nothing.


[quote]
[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162803#msg162803 date=1167028077]
Your missing the whole point, when you subscribe for something, it should not have the same censorship on it if it were publicly broad casted.[/quote]

Maybe you're subscribing to the wrong services from the wrong corporation?[/quote]

I'm saying that the FCC implemented freedom of speech (bad words) restrictions on subscription/cable TV.  Why is subscription satellite radio not subject to the same standards, still don't get the point?

[quote]
have you heard of the "State Legislature"? How about the "Legislative Branch"? You pay for subscription TV to watch TV, not to get pornography.[/quote]

I pay subscription TV to receive a service that provides media from a private company that shouldn't be regulated in the same way as if the service was a free government media service.

I can hear bad words from a subscription radio service, yet I can't hear bad words from a subscription television service just because it delivers frames of images with the sound?

[quote]That's why porn websites are required to tell you that it's illegal for you to view inappropriate content if you're not of age.[/quote]

No, they aren't required to tell you that it's illegal for you to view inappropriate content if you're not of age.

[quote]Why are you so desperate to hear people swear on television?[/quote]

Because I don't understand the reasoning behind not being able to swear on television, almost every other service through subscription allows inappropriate content while subscription tv does not.

[quote]You're talking about cases and precedence. It's not about laws.[/quote]

The Americans with disabilities act allows handicapped people to sue companies that are in violation of anything in the Americans with disabilities act.

[quote]Then you report them like the good citizen you are.[/quote]

I don't need to report them.


[quote]You fucked up and the company will hold you liable, but ultimately its not on your head. The employee is most definitely representative of the company.[/quote]

You said that AND I QUOTE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]What kind of idiot company doesn't purchase insurance for a company-owned vehicle? What state doesn't allow people to have insurance? The company did indeed cause the car accident (as the driver/employee is a representative of the forementioned company) and is therefore liable for damages and other crap. Big surprise.

Are you retarded?[/quote]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The company did indeed cause the car accident (as the driver/employee is a representative of the forementioned company) and is therefore liable for damages and other crap."

"You fucked up and the company will hold you liable, but ultimately its not on your head. The employee is most definitely representative of the company."

What is the company holding you liable from, when the defendant according to your post is the company and the plaintiff is the "victim from the accident."?

[quote]
You need to work on your english a bit. It reflects poorly on the company as a whole, obviously (see: HP spying scandal).[/quote]

You didn't even come close to answering my questions. I asked when someone in the company does something illegal, is the representative or company unlawful?

[quote]
If you make the penalties much less harsh, the corporation isn't likely to care. Then where will the handicapped people be?[/quote]

I was giving the suggestion of giving the corporation 120 days notice to comply with the Americas with disabilities act instead of outright suing them without warning to comply usually because the handicap person just wants money and purposely looks for stores in violation. 

The 120 day notice wouldn't be making the penalties less harsh and reduce the amount of lawsuits to make money and help protect small business from going bankrupt.

[quote]Like all the ones in the past three threads you've created?[/quote]

Which specific scenarios?

[quote]Yeah... somehow I doubt a judge is going to allow that to happen. A couple, yes, but you have to prove you've taken damages or suffered in some way.[/quote]

Happens ALL the time.  Look up Americans with disabilities act lawsuits...

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
So, I don't want you to not want some idiot a house over advertising junk like radio stations ads or whatever movie is coming in x days.  Your point?  how would you be in distress from someone a house over advertising?  I don't understand...[/quote]

Because it's annoying and it devalues my property. This is a very simple concept -- having billboards in and around my home that are likely to block views and advertise crap is annoying, and as such shouldn't (and isn't, for good reason) allowed on residential properties without a permit.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
Nor does a sign, are you against people expressing political and/or social leanings?[/quote]

Are you sure? You must not have ever been to a picket rally, they sure have a lot of signs with things like that on them. No, but for the same reason why I don't want Netflix billboards, I don't want billboards of "vote for y candidate on ticket a in november!" junk.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
That statement makes no sense.[/quote]

How does it make no sense? Like I said, your english sucks.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
Almost every single city has absurd laws, I didn't refer to a situation or consequence to the statement you replied to.[/quote]

I'd have to say that a town that has specific regulations on what shrubberies, plants, etc you can and can't have is pretty extreme. Your english still sucks.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
What responsibility is there to take?  Whats the point to participating through election when your 1 vote means nothing.[/quote]

The responsibility to take part in your government, the way it was meant to be done... if you haven't noticed, it's a democratic republic. That's how it works. Would you prefer some votes to be worth more than others? Dumbass.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
I'm saying that the FCC implemented freedom of speech (bad words) restrictions on subscription/cable TV.  Why is subscription satellite radio not subject to the same standards, still don't get the point?[/quote]

Don't know about that, but disallowing swearing and pornography isn't a big deal.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
No, they aren't required to tell you that it's illegal for you to view inappropriate content if you're not of age.[/quote]

http://www.netatty.com/adult-websites.html

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
The Americans with disabilities act allows handicapped people to sue companies that are in violation of anything in the Americans with disabilities act.[/quote]

Which should be rectified, but you make it out to be much more exaggerated and severe than it really is.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
I don't need to report them.[/quote]

Which is why you're not a good citizen. You don't think it's reasonable to report a racist cop?

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
What is the company holding you liable from, when the defendant according to your post is the company and the plaintiff is the "victim from the accident."?[/quote]

If the police/insurance company determine it's the employee at fault, they'll probably either fire you or take the cost of repairs/other guy's health costs out of your paycheck. I don't see how the employee can sue the company for being a victim -- like I said, isolated and [impossible] rare incidents.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
You didn't even come close to answering my questions. I asked when someone in the company does something illegal, is the representative or company unlawful? [/quote]

Even when somebody commits a crime, they are not considered "unlawful". I answered your question by telling you that every employee represents the company as a whole, and any poor actions reflect on the company. Are you dense?

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
I was giving the suggestion of giving the corporation 120 days notice to comply with the Americas with disabilities act instead of outright suing them without warning to comply usually because the handicap person just wants money and purposely looks for stores in violation.[/quote]

Which is a good idea, but reducing the penalty to only $10 is ridiculous and likely nobody is going to pursue changes to help the handicapped.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
The 120 day notice wouldn't be making the penalties less harsh and reduce the amount of lawsuits to make money and help protect small business from going bankrupt.[/quote]

Do you know how to read?

[quote author=replaced link=topic=16150.msg162806#msg162806 date=1167036656]
Which specific scenarios?[/quote]

Read up

Topaz is actually redeeming herself in my reputation book..

replaced is retarded 3rd edition

as a liscenced home inspector/appraiser/general contractor. I'd have to say 98% of that is not true in the state of califorina, atleast you should remember all states have differnent laws.

You're arguing with inner.de, lol.

why is inner replaced?

Every country other than America is retarded becuase I say so. By the way I am God.