Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SUPREMES STRIKE DOWN VIDEO GAME LAW
Drudge Report ^

Posted on 06/27/2011 7:44:41 AM PDT by Hojczyk

No details yet


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lawsuit; ruling; scotus; videogames
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-280 next last
To: TheBigIf
“Why don’t you show me a citation for how this law is un-Constitutional?”

That is what the Supreme Court just did.

Nice try, though.

You are a typical liberal.

141 posted on 06/27/2011 1:08:31 PM PDT by starlifter (Pullum sapit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

So there you go spouting nonsense again. You want to take away the People’s right to representation based upon your hippy libertarian views but then cry about being called a dictator. Pathetic.

You are what you are Laz. You support dictatorship from the Courts.


142 posted on 06/27/2011 1:09:59 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

No they didn’t. You are delusional. They simply ignored the Constitution and made their personal opinions law.

Nice try though.


143 posted on 06/27/2011 1:11:00 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
I also was not talking about a bar of government interference as you claim. I may not even support this specific law. My problem has to do with the Court acting as if they can deny the People the right to have representation on how their state is governed. There is nothing un-Constitutional about this law at all. You seem to think that the People have no right to representation on public decency and child safety.

Hey. Improvement. Not once did you call me a LIBERTARIAN, ANARCHIST, DICTATOR, HIPPY, OR NAZI. Good job!

Well, here: Ths SCOTUS has for a long time decided the Constitutionality of all manners of populace-popular legislation. Otherwise, states might still have slaves; voting poll taxes might still be in place; firearms might still be banned in DC and Chicago; and so on.

144 posted on 06/27/2011 1:11:10 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Your heros in black robes laz. You just love when they take away rights from the People and impose their personal judgements on us all. Especially when it suits your hippy libertarian fascist philosophy.


145 posted on 06/27/2011 1:14:12 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
So there you go spouting nonsense again. You want to take away the People’s right to representation based upon your hippy libertarian views but then cry about being called a dictator. Pathetic. You are what you are Laz. You support dictatorship from the Courts.

Well, it lasted for one post. Oh well. Returning fire:

So there you go spouting nonsense again. You want to take away the People’s right to Constitutional Protections based upon your hippy libertarian views that courts cannot rule on the Constitutionality of local law, but then cry about being called a dictator. Pathetic.

You are what YOU are, BigIf. You support dictatorship from the Masses.

146 posted on 06/27/2011 1:15:19 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

Your heros in voting booths, BigIf. You just love when they take away Constitutional Protections from the People and impose their tyranny-of-the-Masses on us all. Especially when it suits your hippy libertarian fascist philosophy.


147 posted on 06/27/2011 1:17:04 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

And what Constitutional protection was taken away laz?? The children’s right to pornography? The kids right to drugs? Oh that is right… you think that they have a right to violent video games. Can you show me where that is in your Constitution?

With my argument we ALL have EQUAL rights to representation. Laws can be made and then changed. Representatives could be voted in or out. It is by your argument whereas no one now has a right to representation on this issue due to a dictate by the Court. It is you Laz who is a hippy libertarian fascist dictator.


148 posted on 06/27/2011 1:18:44 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
And what Constitutional protection was taken away laz?? The children’s right to pornography? The kids right to drugs? Oh that is right… you think that they have a right to violent video games. Can you show me where that is in your Constitution?

We have a difference of opinion on where the bar is set. And because you have a different opinion than me, you are a hippy libertarian fascist dictator.

149 posted on 06/27/2011 1:21:34 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
With my argument we ALL have EQUAL rights to representation. Laws can be made and then changed. Representatives could be voted in or out.

Well, then, there's ABSOLUTELY no need for ANY Supreme Court! Don't like Slavery? Just vote the bast'ds out! Change the laws later!

Spoken like a true hippy libertarian fascist dictator.

150 posted on 06/27/2011 1:23:51 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

So first you don’t answer as to what Constitutional protection was taken away but then you accuse me of wanting them all taken away. Typical ridiculous answer from you Laz.

All you care about is that the Court took a position popular with libertarian hippy types who crave anarchy to be dictated by the whims of elites in black robes and for the People to have no rights to representation.


151 posted on 06/27/2011 1:33:17 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

No we do not have a difference of opinion as to where any bar is set. We have a difference opinion about the rights of the People. You believe that they have no right to representation and that judges rule over them and I believe that we ALL have an EQUAL right to representation on issues.


152 posted on 06/27/2011 1:35:09 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
So first you don’t answer as to what Constitutional protection was taken away but then you accuse me of wanting them all taken away. Typical ridiculous answer from you Laz.

Hey, just giving you a taste of your own medicine, BigIf. Remember, anyone who doesn't agree with exactly your point of view is a hippy libertarian fascist dictator.

All you care about is that the Court took a position popular with libertarian hippy types who crave anarchy to be dictated by the whims of elites in black robes and for the People to have no rights to representation.

Tell ya God's honest truth, I could care less about this issue. But when I see a nutbag swinging his fish wildly around the room, calling everyone who disagrees with his very particular view, a hippy libertarian fascist dictator, it makes me take notice. Then I start mocking them for the jerk that they are.

153 posted on 06/27/2011 1:38:40 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
No we do not have a difference of opinion as to where any bar is set. We have a difference opinion about the rights of the People. You believe that they have no right to representation and that judges rule over them and I believe that we ALL have an EQUAL right to representation on issues.

We do! We do have a difference of opinion about the rights of the people! You believe that any popular vote triumphs the Constitution, and I believe that the Constitution triumphs any popular vote!

154 posted on 06/27/2011 1:40:03 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

So you set up a false premise that I wildly called people names and that you really don’t care about the issue but just wanted to take down the name caller.

You really are an idiot. Half the stuff you are claiming I said are simply not true. I haven’t used the term Nazi once in this discussion but yet that doesn’t stop you from making up such a claim.

But go ahead and think of yourself as taking on the name caller. You add nothing to the discussion at all but so what. You have already said that you dont really care about the issue.


155 posted on 06/27/2011 1:43:53 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Again Laz you seem to just want to make up your own straw man arguments. I have never said that the popular vote triumphs over the Constitution. I asked you what Constitutional protection was taken away and you couldn’t answer. I have clearly already stated that there was nothing un-Constitutional about this law.


156 posted on 06/27/2011 1:46:21 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
So you set up a false premise that I wildly called people names

Why

what

ever

gave

you

THAT

idea

? LOL

157 posted on 06/27/2011 1:52:32 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Considering that I do not call anyone names in the first two links I see no reason to go any further checking your links.

Saying that someone is promoting dictatorship is not calling them a name, Laz. I know though that you have comprehension issues so I you cant help getting things wrong.


158 posted on 06/27/2011 1:56:13 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
So you want to take away my right to representation on making laws for public decency. You are promoting dictatorship then.

if the Moslems in Dearborn, Michigan pass a law that says that no woman can drive a car in the city, or walk the street unless dressed in a burka, would that be constitutional?

159 posted on 06/27/2011 2:36:34 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
Not sure how this is different.

The majority opinion (by Scalia) holds that limits on the First Amendment are limited to the ones that existed when the Amendment was enacted 9an original intent argument). There were laws against obscenity in 1789, but none against violence in literature, so the First Amendment protects violent speech more than sexually explicit speech.

160 posted on 06/27/2011 2:42:41 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-280 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson