Picasso
Well-known member
Hence the old nickname “Sloth”.
H
harddriver
Well-known member
A rule or mandate is not a properly debated or adjudicated law. If that did go to court they could not provide any scientific proof that the masks were/are effective at stopping any transmission of a virus especially outside. So ineffectual, fraudulent arbitrary rules are now grounds for arrest and assault when one is just sitting there minding their own business?
One day the rules will not be in your favor.....then what? Past is sometimes prologue.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
Findthetone1
Well-known member
If you say so, Pooky
CrazyNutz
Well-known member
Dude, if my grandson's school has a rule, and I go in all entitled not following the rules, and I'm asked to leave, and I don't. I fully fucking expect to get my ass tased, and forcibly removed.
And I would have no legal recourse. Done
Findthetone1
Well-known member
As it was explained to your simpleton ass, RULES are not properly legislated laws. Perhaps harddriver used too many syllables in the words. If you are asked to leave, and refuse, it becomes criminal trespassing. Which most states have laws for. But since you don't understand that, and aren't in a tizzy over what happened to her, it's quite clear that you bow down to the mask militia because you are afraid of your own shadow.
@harddriver, perhaps a pop-up picture book for the little tyke would be more helpful?
H
harddriver
Well-known member
So then by your professed logic then the maskless cheerleaders doing their cheers in the very same video must also be assaulted and tased for not wearing masks because they are violating the rules. Only the adults can harbor and transmit a virus right? Or are these rules for thee and not for me?
CrazyNutz
Well-known member
Ok, and by your logic you can just jump on the field and start doing cheers with the cheerleaders. ?
CrazyNutz
Well-known member
Again find me something where this lady had some legal recourse that proves her rights were violated. Otherwise you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Last edited:
Findthetone1
Well-known member
Findthetone1
Well-known member
If you think a "rule" telling people to wear a mask OUTSIDE is reasonable, you are, and this shouldn't surprise me, even more stupid than I gave you credit for.
H
harddriver
Well-known member
CrazyNutz
Well-known member
@harddriver
Your point is you do not like the rule, and/or you think it's unreasonable therefor you should not have to follow it. Wrong, not how it works.
Never has worked that way, and never will.
Your point is you do not like the rule, and/or you think it's unreasonable therefor you should not have to follow it. Wrong, not how it works.
Never has worked that way, and never will.
Findthetone1
Well-known member
Hypocrisy man is hypocritical...
Findthetone1
Well-known member
You were the kid in class that ate the paste, weren't you, Squishy?
H
harddriver
Well-known member
So as long as the AUTHORITARIANS make unscientific and unsubstantiated RULES about completely ineffective masks that is something you are willing to comply with. That sir is also how you become ruled over by authoritarians.
That women also has the science behind her and she was having none of it and had the balls to stand up for her rights whether you agree with her or not. But you like the authoritarian covid rules that's the difference. The only argument you could make it the guy is on a public street and she is on school grounds...either way both are authoritarian unreasonable search and siezure which are Constitutionally protected rights. So you are compliant with one slippery slope and defiant with another....Interesting.....
The SIxth Amendtment:
Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
H
harddriver
Well-known member
And you cannot show how the assaults and abuses in either video was justified in either case.
Findthetone1
Well-known member
Again, Laws and Rules are not the same thing. Jesus, Squishy, drink some Ovaltine.
harddriver, how's that pop-up book coming?
I'm sure acceptance is not the appropriate term. There forced to deal with punishment from an adminstration which these days, are usually more concerend with politics then backing officers. That's how it its.
Drink your Ovaltine!!
K
Krull
Well-known member
Tyranny is tyranny.
Picasso
Well-known member
Time and time again, CUntz (Sloth) proves that he/she/it is the biggest moron on RT. Just a radical anti-cop rhetoric thread. Cops are only heroes when a lefty approves of the law being enforced.
Findthetone1
Well-known member
Yes, Squishy, I'm the one that had to explain that to you. The difference being, the Florida incident was based on LAWS from the get go. And the guy was an asshole from jump so HE dictated how that stop went. The woman was forced to violate a law based on a ridiculous, unscientific, virtue signaling RULE. Understand?Damn, you're hopelessly brain damaged
She broke the rules, and was asked to leave. She refused, and that's when the LAW kicked in.
On the "refused to leave" part. Understand, numbnuts?
Squishy's favorite show:
"In the sheeptard justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The idiots who create rules based out of fear porn and the need to fit in with woketard crowd, and the unfortunate civil servants who are forced to enforce and prosecute the offenders. These are their stories."
RULE and ORDER
