Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

That doesn't make it an infringement.

Posted on: January 6, 2017 at 11:27:53 CT
Spanky KU
Posts:
146380
Member For:
21.01 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
You missed the point. The property was not damaged or destroyed nor removed from the owner's property.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Well done Rep Duncan Hunter.... well done! - Spanky KU - 1/6 10:56:37
     Lacy Clay, what a worthless piece of crap....just slightly - tigertix MU - 1/6 11:46:38
     RE: Well done Rep Duncan Hunter.... well done! - Role Call MU - 1/6 11:14:41
          that's a marine and the military for you (nm) - pickle MU - 1/6 11:16:09
               The guys that would save your ass? (nm) - MUGuy2004 STL - 1/6 11:16:45
                    Hasn't been a just war since this country was founded.(nm) - TigerMatt STL - 1/6 11:31:27
     pussies - pickle MU - 1/6 11:12:50
          Atleast he acts on his beliefs instead of whining - GODZILLA MU - 1/6 11:37:27
          Takes one to know one (nm) - MUGuy2004 STL - 1/6 11:13:33
     Maybe he should take the first amendment down as well - El-ahrairah KC - 1/6 11:00:37
          Taking it down did nothing to his rights. They did not try - DHighlander KC - 1/6 11:11:57
               no one was infringed upon by the painting - pickle MU - 1/6 11:15:15
                    no one was infringed upon by taking it down.(nm) - SuperTone MU - 1/6 11:21:31
                         it wasn't his property (nm) - pickle MU - 1/6 11:24:59
                              That is not the point.. - Spanky KU - 1/6 11:26:27
                              the public building isn't the artwork creators property - 90Tiger MU - 1/6 11:26:05
                              It wasn't the person's property who put it up either. - SuperTone MU - 1/6 11:25:52
                                   the property was given to Lacy - pickle MU - 1/6 11:32:43
                                        who owned the wall that it was placed upon?(nm) - dangertim MU - 1/6 11:47:28
                    and no one was infringed upon by its removal. - DHighlander KC - 1/6 11:20:38
                    So you're saying someone could hang a pic of Obama - Civil-E-Tiger MU - 1/6 11:16:36
                         of course (nm) - pickle MU - 1/6 11:16:55
                    no-one was infringed upon by removing it - Spanky KU - 1/6 11:16:33
                         it wasn't his property - pickle MU - 1/6 11:17:47
                              That doesn't make it an infringement. - Spanky KU - 1/6 11:27:53
                                   none of that makes a difference (nm) - pickle MU - 1/6 11:36:09
                                        Nor does your 'it wasn't his property' line... - Spanky KU - 1/6 11:38:01
                                             well, yes, that does - pickle MU - 1/6 11:40:53
                                                  No-one's speech right was infringed upon.... - Spanky KU - 1/6 12:04:55
                                                       RE: No-one's speech right was infringed upon.... - pickle MU - 1/6 12:33:41
                                                            That is irrelevant. No one was infringed by taking it down - Spanky KU - 1/6 12:38:00
                                                                 it is relevant. it is El's point (nm) - pickle MU - 1/6 12:39:28
                                                                      NO.. He doesn't have a point.. nor do you. - Spanky KU - 1/6 12:48:41
                                                                           if i steal your car - pickle MU - 1/6 12:51:56
                                                                                The painting was not stolen; nor taken on a joy ride..next? - Spanky KU - 1/6 12:53:31
                                                                                     don't deflect and try to change courses - pickle MU - 1/6 13:10:44
                              nobody missed your point, you're being presumptuous - 90Tiger MU - 1/6 11:27:12
                                   no, the point was El's regarding free speech and expression - pickle MU - 1/6 11:35:32
          Why? Doesn't he have 1st Amendment rights also? - Spanky KU - 1/6 11:03:56
               Not to mess with someone else's property - El-ahrairah KC - 1/6 11:05:21
                    I think you're missing the point here. nm - Civil-E-Tiger MU - 1/6 11:15:38
                         was it his property? (nm) - pickle MU - 1/6 11:16:40
                              it's on public property, it wasn't on clay's property nor - 90Tiger MU - 1/6 11:28:55
                              Is the building it was hung in Clay's property? nm - Civil-E-Tiger MU - 1/6 11:17:33
                                   answer the question (nm) - pickle MU - 1/6 11:18:03
                                        Yes, his property and it was returned undamaged. Now answer - Civil-E-Tiger MU - 1/6 11:18:47
                                             the painting was Duncan Hunter's property? no, it wasn't (nm) - pickle MU - 1/6 11:25:30
                                                  whose property was it? the answer is: - 90Tiger MU - 1/6 11:29:49
                                                  How does 'ownership' factor into your determination of - Spanky KU - 1/6 11:29:04
                    Why not? Did he destroy it or simply return it to - Spanky KU - 1/6 11:09:44
                         you don't mess with people's stuff - El-ahrairah KC - 1/6 11:16:10
                              Hunter was elected.. he didn't inherit it. - Spanky KU - 1/6 12:06:31




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard