Quote:
Originally Posted by davecummings
I DO understand, and I also understand that the future litigation will be stronger if FSC can point to considerable comments from within the Industry concerning the burdensomeness,....
.
|
the point you keep droning on about ... "burdensome" was raised and rejected outright by the DOJ already. comment all you want.. the fact of the matter is that these issues were raised already and basically the DOJ said "yeah, well... we don't care, so blow me"
now you are saying "hey, you know that thing that had zero impact last time? why aren't you idiots doing that again"
and... of course, you sprinkle in "haters" here and there as if anyone is really hating against those trying to stop 2257 or "hating" on anything.
FACT... people commented and raised all the issues you are raising already.
FACT... the DOJ flat out rejected every single one of them.
FACT... A TRO meant zero in the big scheme of things and whether or not this would become law.
FACT... democrat or republican... EVERY politician has to pander to the religious and religious right to get votes.
FACT... at the end of the day, the FSC will do absolutely nothing to stop what should be a slam dunk argument (that it all has nothing to do with protecting children)