I refuse to "voluntarily" give up a seat I have paid for, and am, in fact, occupying, and some

[OrwellwasRight]

169. Not odd at all. Just following your lead.

The post you responded to read thusly, in its entirety:

"In this country however, history shows that property rights are protected more vigilantly than all other rights. And that is what happened here: the cops were called to protect the property of United, not the civil rights of the paying customer."

You responded by posting, speciously, material on the contract that is formed when a passenger buys a ticket from an airline in the U.S. A recitation of contract law has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my point about the history of the legal system in the U.S. and how it prefers property to people.

So, in fact, you did not make "another good point." You posted an irrelevancy designed to change the subject. So why should my post back to you attempt to rebut your post? My post was all about how your post IRRELEVANT and did not undermine my point. I was changing the subject back.

My response to you was to you get to understand my point so that you would stop posting specious and irrelevant responses. Do you now understand why I didn't need to rebut you? You don't have to rebut something that is not on point. I hope this is finally clear.

And please stop calling me a liar. If you want to call names, go use Discussionist or FreeRepublic.

(Free advice: And if you think it is a lie that the US laws protect property more stringently than any other right, you might want to post some evidence, rather than just call me a liar.)