Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

page: 22
54
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 


Again, your gun wouldnt stop the government from doing anything. I cant believe I have to repeat this. Either the military is against you in this scenario, and you lose. Or the military is with you and your gun is useless because the military is on your side anyways.

EITHER WAY... The gun is USELESS




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Eula refers to software and user licensing. Not membership of a message forum. It does not have anything to do with allowing free speech on a website.
edit on 25-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
He is talking about EULA and is correct.

Sony was sued .
This would not fall under that as you could be kicked for any reason- But he is right, a EULA is not enforcable in a court of law.


I do not see any difference with a Terms of Service on a message board. But that would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. As of yet, I don't think it has ruled on the matter.


I promise you when you get banned again, you wont be able to fight it.

You are correwct- But it would be wonderful for the Lulz effect alone to see the US Supreme Court rule on ATS kicking someone for violating the TOS... In fact, it would be epic.

Kickstarter anyone? I want to read the ruling and have the Judges have to talk in legalese about the Grandpa having baphomet signs lol.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 
In Ohio for example,

2917.31 Inducing panic. (A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following: (1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;*
I don't think anyone is arguing that we should be able to speak beyond what the T&C allows, but the "whatever deemed offensive" under 21b part is where things get murky in times like this.
edit on 25-12-2012 by Sek82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by bknapple32
Look it up yourself if you are that ignorant. Usually we provide links here. I didnt know I had to provide a link equivalent to proving its illegal to run a red light


Yeah, an obscure law is super commonly known... just like how it's really commonly known that WTC7 fell down at freefall speed due to gravity!


Id be willing to bet that 95% of the adult population in the united states knows yelling fire in a theater is against the law..

Congrats you are almost in the 1 percent...
edit on 25-12-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


WILSON refers to software and user licensing. Not membership of a message forum.

Yes I know- But I felt that was what he was getting at here. I clearly said that wouldn't fit "this" issue, but that he is right in that there is no "legal" bearing for a TOS/EULA.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 


Again, your gun wouldnt stop the government from doing anything. I cant believe I have to repeat this. Either the military is against you in this scenario, and you lose. Or the military is with you and your gun is useless because the military is on your side anyways.

EITHER WAY... The gun is USELESS


So we should just let them kill our children and take our guns then?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


Druid: this is more for the gentleman you were replying to, but I didn't wanna have the long quote in my reply...

BKnapple: Druid42 is one of the most intelligent and well grounded people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting on this site, I have debated him a few times, and come very close to losing to him as well, he does his homework and will not comment unless he is at least pretty sure he's correct, and very quick to admit if he is wrong. I have learned to cut him a bit of slack, and he has never been so off the wall with his suppositions. Just a personal note on Druid, as I think that you took him entirely the wrong way.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 


Again, your gun wouldnt stop the government from doing anything. I cant believe I have to repeat this. Either the military is against you in this scenario, and you lose. Or the military is with you and your gun is useless because the military is on your side anyways.

EITHER WAY... The gun is USELESS


So we should just let them kill our children and take our guns then?

Who is doing that though? Nobody said anything like that?

look out your window man. there are no jackbooted Storntroopers putting your neighbors in a camp-



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by EffTheCIA
I do not see any difference with a Terms of Service on a message board. But that would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. As of yet, I don't think it has ruled on the matter.


I promise you when you get banned again, you wont be able to fight it.

You are correwct- But it would be wonderful for the Lulz effect alone to see the US Supreme Court rule on ATS kicking someone for violating the TOS... In fact, it would be epic.

Kickstarter anyone? I want to read the ruling and have the Judges have to talk in legalese about the Grandpa having baphomet signs lol.


I believe in free speech enough I'd be willing to do it. And I'm pretty sure they'd lose. Just like the claim that ammo isn't covered by the 2nd amendment. Just because the internet wasn't invented when the constitution was written doesn't mean it didn't cover it as well! The constitution is wide sweeping.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


We seem to be on the same page then. Also, Wilson? Gotta love auto correct



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Druid42
 


Druid: this is more for the gentleman you were replying to, but I didn't wanna have the long quote in my reply...

BKnapple: Druid42 is one of the most intelligent and well grounded people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting on this site, I have debated him a few times, and come very close to losing to him as well, he does his homework and will not comment unless he is at least pretty sure he's correct, and very quick to admit if he is wrong. I have learned to cut him a bit of slack, and he has never been so off the wall with his suppositions. Just a personal note on Druid, as I think that you took him entirely the wrong way.


Fair enough, but the argument was so similar to telling a father how to grieve. Fact is we dont know what the church decided to do and why. Assuming just perpetuates the problem



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by EffTheCIA
So we should just let them kill our children and take our guns then?

Who is doing that though? Nobody said anything like that?

look out your window man. there are no jackbooted Storntroopers putting your neighbors in a camp-


Oh, did you not hear about what happened at the Century 16 in Aurora on 7/20/12? Or at Sandy Hook Elementary on 12/14/12?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by EffTheCIA
I do not see any difference with a Terms of Service on a message board. But that would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. As of yet, I don't think it has ruled on the matter.


I promise you when you get banned again, you wont be able to fight it.

You are correwct- But it would be wonderful for the Lulz effect alone to see the US Supreme Court rule on ATS kicking someone for violating the TOS... In fact, it would be epic.

Kickstarter anyone? I want to read the ruling and have the Judges have to talk in legalese about the Grandpa having baphomet signs lol.


I believe in free speech enough I'd be willing to do it. And I'm pretty sure they'd lose. Just like the claim that ammo isn't covered by the 2nd amendment. Just because the internet wasn't invented when the constitution was written doesn't mean it didn't cover it as well! The constitution is wide sweeping.


Again, not a claim because you say so. Its fact. Ammunition is not protected by the second amendment.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by EffTheCIA
I do not see any difference with a Terms of Service on a message board. But that would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. As of yet, I don't think it has ruled on the matter.


I promise you when you get banned again, you wont be able to fight it.

You are correwct- But it would be wonderful for the Lulz effect alone to see the US Supreme Court rule on ATS kicking someone for violating the TOS... In fact, it would be epic.

Kickstarter anyone? I want to read the ruling and have the Judges have to talk in legalese about the Grandpa having baphomet signs lol.


I believe in free speech enough I'd be willing to do it. And I'm pretty sure they'd lose. Just like the claim that ammo isn't covered by the 2nd amendment. Just because the internet wasn't invented when the constitution was written doesn't mean it didn't cover it as well! The constitution is wide sweeping.

You would lose.

Free Speech has nothing to do with Private Property... Hell, even in Public we have "Free Speech" Zones. So if we cannot protest and use our Free Speech in Public, how is any Court going to rule in favor of a website not kicking someone for any reason?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 


Why won't you provide any legal proof as I asked. Why won't you answer my question about being fired for language?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
What's wrong?

Your CIA handler decided that the people of ATS should shut up about the massacre and thus summoned you to do the job?




Yeah their regs weren't cutting it for keeping the legitimate discussion at bay.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
You would lose.

Free Speech has nothing to do with Private Property... Hell, even in Public we have "Free Speech" Zones. So if we cannot protest and use our Free Speech in Public, how is any Court going to rule in favor of a website not kicking someone for any reason?


The "Free Speech Zones" haven't been challenged in court as far as I'm aware. That most certainly wouldn't be ruled as constitutional by any legitimate judge.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Oh ignorant one. Its so easy to just shout cia handler, or shill or whatever you need to resort to. Instead of understanding his point. Or respectfully debating it, you call shill. the easiest, more ignorant, and immature way to reply. Its the internet, what do I expect.


If you think the owner of ATS is a cia shill, why are you here?





new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join