|
|
Posted by FatKat on 08/10/06 21:30
Bob wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:59:01 -0500, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>> But do try again, this time with a rational comment - assuming you are
> >>>> capable of such things.
>
> >>>It's only rational if you think theft is legal.
>
> >> You are not rational, therefore you are not qualified to make such
> >> pronouncements.
> >> And one thing is for certain, I have no intentions of letting some
> >> leftist queer tell me how I must interpret the matter. Now go crawl
> >> back up your boyfriend's ass where you belong before you stink the
> >> place up.
>
> >I stand by original statement. You're a deluded, self important ignorant
> >fucking idiot.
>
> Ad hom.
>
> You lose.
>
> If you can't make your case rationally, then you are irrelevant to the
> discussion.
>
> For those who may not be aware, the issue of private use of video and
> audio entertainment has not been settled by Congress. Only Congress
> can make binding laws. The current laws permit Fair Use. Just because
> some judge thinks otherwise does not make it a binding law.
Actually, it's the enforcement of laws that makes them binding, and
that's where the judges come in.
>
> Dio you want the judiciary to make the laws?
Actually, they've been doing that for ages. It's called "precedent".
> They are unelected so they do not represent your interests as citizens.
Many judges are elected. Other judges are appointed by elected
officials, people who are answerable to the electorate. I bet you
think that they're only answerable to the "special interests", right?
> They only represent those special interests who support their position as judicial
> advocates. Do you really want a fascist dictatorship?
Weren't they queer leftists a minute ago?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|