Rope, Tree, Journalist...…...

[308pirate]

….....Some Assembly Required

United Airlines passenger allowed to fly in T-shirt alluding to lynching journalists: report

The anonymous customer who objected to the shirt said he felt it was wrong for one passenger to “be allowed to threaten other passengers."

www.foxnews.com

Pussy bitch "journalist" throws a hissy fit because someone boarded the same plane he was in while wearing a t-shirt that read so, calling it a direct threat. Faggot didn't even dare use his name, that's how fucking scared they are of us.

I mentioned last week that the media needs to start tasting some fear. I'm glad this patriot made one of them nearly piss himself.

​

 

[Mwalex]

The shirt gives no specifics on how to assemble the bits and pieces. Sounds like the person that complained has a guilty conscience.

 

[308pirate]

The shirt gives no specifics on how to assemble the bits and pieces. Sounds like the person that complained has a guilty conscience.

For all we know, it's talking about a swing.

 

[FS1]

Rope, tree, politician
Impeaching Trump May be required

That one will get you some attention. Maybe even handcuffs. Free Speech is too dangerous for us mortals.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

"The shirt isn't offensive, it's threatening."
Fuck me that is a powerful shirt! I gotta get one of them!

 

[Sean the Nailer]

For all we know, it's talking about a swing.

Swing,,, Pendulum..... same/same!

 

[vh20]

Well, seeing as how no trees or rope (or even REAL journalists for that matter) were reported to have been on the flight, I conclude that there WAS NO DIRECT THREAT as the woman and her brother tried to contend. This is just a triggered SJW.

 

[W54/XM-388]

"The shirt isn't offensive, it's threatening."
Fuck me that is a powerful shirt! I gotta get one of them!

If you are getting a shirt made it would be great to leave the back of the shirt exactly as it is shown in the picture but then on the front of it have a picture of a tree and a nice branch with a swing hanging from the branch and a reporter sitting on the swing writing something on a pad of paper.

So when they get all mad and frothy and are accusing you of being threatening, you just turn around and make a fool of them the second time.

 

[Nik H]

I tried to find this on-line but no source exists that I can find.

I would wear it A LOT

 

[Nodakplowboy]

Here's the story:

Cafe Press

Edit: I'd like one.

 

[MtnCreek]

The elusive journalist. Nearly as rare as jackalopes.

 

[MtnCreek]

If BBC ever saw one in the wild, they'd follow it with a camera and narrate in quite voice.

 

[Blutroop]

That company quit offering them after all the comments. I wonder if they’d do a order of maga hats?

 

[308pirate]

Just proves the point that leftists are brave on line because they meet no physical opposition there.

Just like the antifa bitches. All fucking brave until someone pins one of them against the wall

 

[Centuriator]

Just proves the point that leftists are brave on line because they meet no physical opposition there.

There are just as many phony-tough guys among conservatives commenting under fake names to go around too, you know, like on gun forums.

Threatening to lynch journalists is idiotic and is not funny.

Every totalitarian dictatorship in history has exchanged a free press for propaganda bureaus.

It is a stupid t-shirt and only idiots would think otherwise.

 

[wade2big]

There are just as many phony-tough guys among conservatives commenting under fake names to go around too, you know, like on gun forums.

Threatening to lynch journalists is idiotic and is not funny.

Every totalitarian dictatorship in history has exchanged a free press for propaganda bureaus.

It is a stupid t-shirt and only idiots would think otherwise.

We have no mainstream free press. We have the propaganda bureaus you mentioned. “Journalists” need to be held accountable as well. I like the shirt.

 

[DustBun]

It’s different when someone else uses free speech.

The lies that they tell, the misrepresentations, the false accusations and the names that they call the President. I have heard some of them “discuss” things in such a way as if they do wish harm to come to him. Yet they incite violence every time they interview BLM, ANITFA and soy boy protesters and justify these people’s actions to sway public opinion. When do they interview one of us objectively, like they do these other groups, and try to sway public opinion in the same manner?

I am tired of the media and how they hold themselves to some self-appointed high standard of truth and dignity when all they do is “write” an article and copy and paste everyone else’s twitter shit. Boy that’s a hard job. They say what they want with no impunity. So I think the shirt is great and funny and if some “journalist” is upset about it, I could care less. They can grow a pair and move on. We can all put different three words groups together and some will think it is funny, others will be offended. It’s all how someone wants to take it.

Edited: Took out an extra period.

 

[Ravenworks]

I have been called asshole at least once everytime I wear this one.

 

[Pritch]

can i get an amazon link to purchase that there T-shirt

and media say vile shit all day long that sure as shit ain't true and they wanna bitch about a t-shirt roflmfao

 

[MadDuner]

Call it stupid if you want, but it gets the point across.

Then change it to say:

Rope.
Tree.
Propagandists.

There are very few “journalists” left.
Everybody else is agenda-driven propagandists.
Everyone knows the media is a HUGE part of our country’s problems.
How do we fix that?

 

[TheGerman]

Can't wait until I wear my Come And Take It shirt to Mexico this weekend.

 

[axarob44]

There are just as many phony-tough guys among conservatives commenting under fake names to go around too, you know, like on gun forums.

Threatening to lynch journalists is idiotic and is not funny.

Every totalitarian dictatorship in history has exchanged a free press for propaganda bureaus.

It is a stupid t-shirt and only idiots would think otherwise.

So, what do you think our current state of affairs with most of the main stream media is ? Seems to me, 'propaganda bureaus' sums it up in my book. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, or live under rock. That freaking "Take the high road" shit is done.

 

[Srgt. Hulka]

I tried to find this on-line but no source exists that I can find.

I would wear it A LOT

rope tree journalist shirt

rope tree journalist shirt shirts, apparel, posters are available at TeeChip.

teechip.com

Rope Tree Journalist Some Assembly Required T-shirt

Rope Tree Journalist Some Assembly Required T-shirt from clothesmapper.com This t-shirt is Made To Order, one by one printed so we can control the quality.

clothesmapper.com

 

[308pirate]

There are just as many phony-tough guys among conservatives commenting under fake names to go around too, you know, like on gun forums.

Threatening to lynch journalists is idiotic and is not funny.

Every totalitarian dictatorship in history has exchanged a free press for propaganda bureaus.

It is a stupid t-shirt and only idiots would think otherwise.

Get the fuck out of here defending a bunch of lying shitbags.

Come to think of it the 9/11 terrorists aimed at the wrong building. They should have parked those planes here:

 

[Carlos Danger]

“He told her he didn’t want one passenger threatening to kill other passengers,” she claimed. “He told her @United should do the right thing. She went to talk to the captain.”

Well, since trees dont grow on planes, and I'm pretty sure no rope wouldve made it through TSA, I guess there really wouldn't be any way passengers could've been "killed". Maybe if journalists started doing the "journalist" shit the way its supposed to be done, people wouldn't have to wear shirts like these and you could go back to sipping on your double decaf mocha latte or whatever the fuck you pussies pour down your cock holsters.

 

[Gaznazdiak]

There are just as many phony-tough guys among conservatives commenting under fake names to go around too, you know, like on gun forums.

Threatening to lynch journalists is idiotic and is not funny.

Every totalitarian dictatorship in history has exchanged a free press for propaganda bureaus.

It is a stupid t-shirt and only idiots would think otherwise.

As a foreigner, I acknowledge that it's not my place to comment on your domestic politics any more than it is to tell you how to raise your kids, and even though I may make a cunt of myself for saying it as I see it, it will not be the first time.

I have seen a great many contributors on forums such as this, staunchly supporting your 2nd amendment, and rightly so. I wish we had something similar.
One comment on here somewhere even points out that the importance of 2A is demonstrated by its place on the list.

Yet I see the majority of these same people seemingly willing to throw away the only one above it.

Absent the ability to freely express dissent without fear of repercussions, we are not free, no matter how many guns we may own.

Here in Australia we are not truly free. Our main public broadcaster and a major news company, and their employees, were recently raided for reporting things that embarrassed the government. We have the most restrictive defamation laws in the western world, we have a whistleblower facing decades in prison for exposing a scandal in the taxation department.

If you deny someone their right to dissent or express views with which you disagree, you set a dangerous precedent that may one day be used against you. I'm old enough to remember "The Skokie Affair" in the mid 70s.

Friedrich Niemoller said it best over 70yrs ago and his words remain relevant today:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then 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 out for me

 

[Maser]

People in general just can't handle harmless banter anymore. I'm a millennial and not too long ago I saw some random boomer in public wearing a shirt that pretty much said that all millennials are Socialists. I guess the fact that I didn't bitch and moan and sue for slander makes me a minority in society nowadays. I see all the shit that's been going down with Blizzard and China and can't help but see that fucking nonsense existing here in America. Fuck baseball and apple pie, the new symbols of America are hurt feelings and freedom suppression. God help us!

 

[308pirate]

To our Australian friend, it may help you to understand when you realize that the Bill of Rights in our Constitution is an injunction against government, not against the people.

So while the government is prohibited from muzzling the press, we are not.

It's that simple. The American press, by and large, have lost all credibility and moral high ground when they have clearly become a propaganda arm for leftist ideology and give short thrift or outright hostility to political views that don't align with those of the editorial boards at newspapers, TV newsrooms, etc.

Their lack of impartiality has led to a lack of respect from a significant segment of the citizenry and so you see us expressing the hostility using that very same Amendment they cloak themselves in. Hoisted on their own petard comes to mind.

Notice that no one has even hinted at wanting any laws that muzzle the press here........

 

[pmclaine]

There are just as many phony-tough guys among conservatives commenting under fake names to go around too, you know, like on gun forums.

Threatening to lynch journalists is idiotic and is not funny.

Every totalitarian dictatorship in history has exchanged a free press for propaganda bureaus.

It is a stupid t-shirt and only idiots would think otherwise.

James Rosen and Sharyl Atkisson agree...

 

[FS1]

.

There are just as many phony-tough guys among conservatives commenting under fake names to go around too, you know, like on gun forums.

Threatening to lynch journalists is idiotic and is not funny.

Every totalitarian dictatorship in history has exchanged a free press for propaganda bureaus.

It is a stupid t-shirt and only idiots would think otherwise.

The Press is not exempt from the People. When those whom you look to for truth, tell you lies and stir discontent and division. You have a duty to react. This man reacted with a harmless shirt. There is no greater threat to Liberty (not even the Govt) than a corrupt press. They control minds.

"Every totalitarian dictatorship in history has exchanged a free press for propaganda bureaus."

And it is the duty to every citizen to restore that free press when it has been turned into a totalitarian propaganda bureau. You Sir, are the Idiot you so hate.

I like the shirt...smells like Freedom.

 

[pmclaine]

The left loves to advertise their political beliefs - T-shirts, resist bumper stickers, Hate has no Home Here yard signs.......

Their advertising works.

It gives the appearance their numbers are big.

Im sure there are those that adopt the virtue signalling just so "they can belong" not even fully understanding the issues, they just want to be cool with a yard sign.

I avoid "inflammatory" or "offensive" gear but just about every T shirt I have today comes from these guys...

The Official Don't Tread On Me Outfitters | Gadsden and Culpeper

Gadsden and Culpeper is America's official "Don't Tread on Me" outfitter providing inspiring historical information and a wide variety of unique products.

gadsdenandculpeper.com

I'm not promoting any political agenda. Ill promote America.

 

[MadDuner]

My wife was pissed at me for waxing cars with the brand new Nike shirts she bought me for my birthday.... when I explained to her that I do not support, wear, or advertise for any company that supports anti-American “kneelers” - she stomped away in disgust.

 

[Gaznazdiak]

To our Australian friend, it may help you to understand when you realize that the Bill of Rights in our Constitution is an injunction against government, not against the people.

So while the government is prohibited from muzzling the press, we are not.

It's that simple. The American press, by and large, have lost all credibility and moral high ground when they have clearly become a propaganda arm for leftist ideology and give short thrift or outright hostility to political views that don't align with those of the editorial boards at newspapers, TV newsrooms, etc.

Their lack of impartiality has led to a lack of respect from a significant segment of the citizenry and so you see us expressing the hostility using that very same Amendment they cloak themselves in. Hoisted on their own petard comes to mind.

Notice that no one has even hinted at wanting any laws that muzzle the press here........

G'day 308pirate

Couple of things.
Firstly, thanks for not seeing my perhaps misguided observation as a criticism or attack as it was offered in good faith.
Secondly, it was by no means a blanket endorsement of all journalists, I too detest the clickbait whores and sensationalist word twisters who have become a viral pest since the advent of the 24hr news/ social media cycle.

After reflecting overnight on what I said, I got a whiff of hypocrisy as well and I really hate that.

It occurred to me that I was, in a way, not practicing what I was preaching.
By suggesting caution in your expression of your contempt for today's media and the manner and content of their expression, I was ipso facto suggesting you curtail your own.

The freedoms espoused in your 1st amendment raise probably the trickiest philosophical questions of all the freedons we both believe in. ?

 

[Rthur]

Here is one to be proud of:

R

 

[Kamerad]

Here is one to be proud of:
View attachment 7165512

R

 

[308pirate]

G'day 308pirate

Couple of things.
Firstly, thanks for not seeing my perhaps misguided observation as a criticism or attack as it was offered in good faith.
Secondly, it was by no means a blanket endorsement of all journalists, I too detest the clickbait whores and sensationalist word twisters who have become a viral pest since the advent of the 24hr news/ social media cycle.

After reflecting overnight on what I said, I got a whiff of hypocrisy as well and I really hate that.

It occurred to me that I was, in a way, not practicing what I was preaching.
By suggesting caution in your expression of your contempt for today's media and the manner and content of their expression, I was ipso facto suggesting you curtail your own.

The freedoms espoused in your 1st amendment raise probably the trickiest philosophical questions of all the freedons we both believe in. ?

Thank you.

Here's a beautiful example of why the anti-press sentiment in this country has bloomed the way it has and why it's justified.

CNN staffers bash network’s liberal bias, Jeff Zucker goes after Trump in new, secret recordings

Conservative activist group Project Veritas releases another batch of secretly recorded video of CNN staffers dishing on the liberal bias at the network and CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker ordering producers to ditch an “important story” for negative coverage of President Trump.

www.foxnews.com

The First Amendment is quite simple and clear, thought it gets twisted in all different ways both by people who try to subvert it and by the ignorant:

Amendment I

​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It says that Congress (which has been interpreted by our Courts to mean the entire government) shall not do the following

1. Establish an official religion for the country or for the government. This has been incorrectly interpreted to mean that no religions activity can be performed by private individuals on government property, or that government schools can't teach anything about religion, and any other number of socialist perversions aimed at driving religion from the public sphere. It simply means we don't have a state-approved religion or religious denomination like many countries do.
2. Prohibit the free exercise of religion. Notice that it does not say "shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, except on government property". It means government cannot compel people to worship in a particular way, or not worship, or do things that violate one's religions convictions.
3. Abridge the freedom of speech. Note that this portion of the Amendment does not say "No one can abridge the freedom of speech of others". Just the government is prohibited from doing so.
4. Same as 3. above, except it specifically mentions the press as the target of government oppression. Note it does not say that people not acting in their government capacity are prohibited from silencing the press.
5. Prohibit the people from peaceably assembling. As far as I'm concerned, government permits for public protests and meetings are null and void. Obviously, an assembly is not peaceful if it interrupts the lives of others who want no part of it, so the government has ample room within the Amendment to use its police powers against a public assembly in order to keep the peace.
6. Prohibit people from petitioning government for redress. Should be obvious, but it wasn't in 1789......

So as you see, private individuals (which includes government employees acting outside their scope of employment) have ample powers to curtail the speech of others in many lawful ways.

 

[Gaznazdiak]

Thank you.

Here's a beautiful example of why the anti-press sentiment in this country has bloomed the way it has and why it's justified.

CNN staffers bash network’s liberal bias, Jeff Zucker goes after Trump in new, secret recordings

Conservative activist group Project Veritas releases another batch of secretly recorded video of CNN staffers dishing on the liberal bias at the network and CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker ordering producers to ditch an “important story” for negative coverage of President Trump.

www.foxnews.com

The First Amendment is quite simple and clear, thought it gets twisted in all different ways both by people who try to subvert it and by the ignorant:


It says that Congress (which has been interpreted by our Courts to mean the entire government) shall not do the following

1. Establish an official religion for the country or for the government. This has been incorrectly interpreted to mean that no religions activity can be performed by private individuals on government property, or that government schools can't teach anything about religion, and any other number of socialist perversions aimed at driving religion from the public sphere. It simply means we don't have a state-approved religion or religious denomination like many countries do.
2. Prohibit the free exercise of religion. Notice that it does not say "shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, except on government property". It means government cannot compel people to worship in a particular way, or not worship, or do things that violate one's religions convictions.
3. Abridge the freedom of speech. Note that this portion of the Amendment does not say "No one can abridge the freedom of speech of others". Just the government is prohibited from doing so.
4. Same as 3. above, except it specifically mentions the press as the target of government oppression. Note it does not say that people not acting in their government capacity are prohibited from silencing the press.
5. Prohibit the people from peaceably assembling. As far as I'm concerned, government permits for public protests and meetings are null and void. Obviously, an assembly is not peaceful if it interrupts the lives of others who want no part of it, so the government has ample room within the Amendment to use its police powers against a public assembly in order to keep the peace.
6. Prohibit people from petitioning government for redress. Should be obvious, but it wasn't in 1789......

So as you see, private individuals (which includes government employees acting outside their scope of employment) have ample powers to curtail the speech of others in many lawful ways.

Thanks for that clarification 308.

Best we don't go into freedoms of religion, I suspect from the tenor of your explanation that my belief that they include the freedom from religion as well, as it does in Australia, would not sit well with you.

As to expression, if I understand your interpretation correctly, you feel that while government is directly prohibited from suppressing the expression of those outside the government infrastructure, individuals have the unwritten, but implied, right to suppress the expression of others.

If that is the case, then your system is indeed quite different from ours.

Thanks for taking the time to explain these points for me.?

 

[308pirate]

Best we don't go into freedoms of religion, I suspect from the tenor of your explanation that my belief that they include the freedom from religion as well, as it does in Australia, would not sit well with you.

Here you have the right to be free from religion on your property. That's it. Anywhere else you are not free to curtail others from their expression, mostly because you don't control public spaces nor other people's private spaces. That's not a belief. That's settled law.

As to expression, if I understand your interpretation correctly, you feel that while government is directly prohibited from suppressing the expression of those outside the government infrastructure, individuals have the unwritten, but implied, right to suppress the expression of others.

I don't "feel" anything. I know for a fact that I am free to curtail the right of others to express themselves and cannot be punished for it. I can throw you off my property for saying things I disagree with. I can bring economic pressure to bear against people whose speech I disagree with. I can deny you a platform to make your views heard or known, if that platform belongs to me or if i can apply negative pressure on the owner of that platform. That is settled law, not my opinion.

I don't think you understand rights, to be quite honest. A government document doesn't grant me any rights. My rights are pre-existing of any form of government. All our Bill of Rights (and indeed our entire Constitution) does is remind government that it is constrained from removing or violating those rights.

 

[Gaznazdiak]

Here you have the right to be free from religion on your property. That's it. Anywhere else you are not free to curtail others from their expression, mostly because you don't control public spaces nor other people's private spaces. That's not a belief. That's settled law.



I don't "feel" anything. I know for a fact that I am free to curtail the right of others to express themselves and cannot be punished for it. I can throw you off my property for saying things I disagree with. I can bring economic pressure to bear against people whose speech I disagree with. I can deny you a platform to make your views heard or known, if that platform belongs to me or if i can apply negative pressure on the owner of that platform. That is settled law, not my opinion.

I don't think you understand rights, to be quite honest. A government document doesn't grant me any rights. My rights are pre-existing of any form of government. All our Bill of Rights (and indeed our entire Constitution) does is remind government that it is constrained from removing or violating those rights.

The reason I mentioned freedom from religion is based on the case of an airman who was refused re-enlistmet for not saying "so help me god" at the end of his oath after a change in the regulation that used to give atheists the choice not to if they felt their particular beliefs strongly enough. That man was refused his freedom from religion in a clear case of the state using a threat to his career to force him to perform a religious ceremony instead of a secular one.
Is this common in the US?

Group: Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say ‘so help me God’

An atheist airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada was denied reenlistment last month for refusing to take an oath ...

www.airforcetimes.com

I understand rights per se well enough, it's people's individual interpretations of and attitudes to them that sometimes have me wondering.

Can I ask, with your rights to curtail the expression of others as you stated above, are you then happy for someone else to assert this same right to curtail your freedom of expression under this interpretation?

Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational, it's just that the different ways people live and interact in different societies has always interested me.
Better understanding of how others see the world leads to eaasier interactions.

 

[308pirate]

The reason I mentioned freedom from religion is based on the case of an airman who was refused re-enlistmet for not saying "so help me god" at the end of his oath after a change in the regulation that used to give atheists the choice not to if they felt their particular beliefs strongly enough. That man was refused his freedom from religion in a clear case of the state using a threat to his career to force him to perform a religious ceremony instead of a secular one.
Is this common in the US?

Group: Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say ‘so help me God’

An atheist airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada was denied reenlistment last month for refusing to take an oath ...

www.airforcetimes.com

I still don't think you understand the difference between how the Constitution of the US applies to the government vs how it applies to the people. Otherwise you would not be bringing this case up. If I was of a devious mind I would think you're trying to bait a certain response.

Can I ask, with your rights to curtail the expression of others as you stated above, are you then happy for someone else to assert this same right to curtail your freedom of expression under this interpretation?

First, the fact that the Constitution doesn't prohibit individuals from censoring or attempting to censor the speech of other individuals is not an interpretation. It's a settled matter and has been so for centuries. Please stop your thinly veiled attempts to paint this issue as relative, situational, or subject to change. It's none of those.

Secondly, yes I have to accept that it may be done to me whether I like it or not.

 

[Gaznazdiak]

On t

I still don't think you understand the difference between how the Constitution of the US applies to the government vs how it applies to the people. Otherwise you would not be bringing this case up. If I was of a devious mind I would think you're trying to bait a certain response.



First, the fact that the Constitution doesn't prohibit individuals from censoring or attempting to censor the speech of other individuals is not an interpretation. It's a settled matter and has been so for centuries. Please stop your thinly veiled attempts to paint this issue as relative, situational, or subject to change. It's none of those.

Secondly, yes I have to accept that it may be done to me whether I like it or not.

On the contrary, the case above illustrates my point succinctly. I'm not trying to bait a particular response from you, merely understand your viewpoint. Get a grip.

You have been at pains to point out that the ammendments we are "discussing" apply as controls on the government. I am simply pointing out that in the case of the airman above, the government in the guise of the Air Force, apparently abrogated his 1st ammendment rights by demanding he perform a religious act.

Your obvious animosity at being asked simple questions is a perfect example of why the world is going to shit, instead of being willing to meet in the centre and work stuff out, too many people now puff themselves up with confected outrage and race to the extremes and throw rocks at each other.
The moment atheists are mentioned you react like a Salafi, you get aggressive and resort to attempts at insult.

I would respectfully suggest that if you are not equipped to debate without resorting to 6th grade insults when you read something you don't like, just ignore the post and let someone else answer.

 

[MtnCreek]

On t

On the contrary, the case above illustrates my point succinctly. I'm not trying to bait a particular response from you, merely understand your viewpoint. Get a grip.

You have been at pains to point out that the ammendments we are "discussing" apply as controls on the government. I am simply pointing out that in the case of the airman above, the government in the guise of the Air Force, apparently abrogated his 1st ammendment rights by demanding he perform a religious act.

Your obvious animosity at being asked simple questions is a perfect example of why the world is going to shit, instead of being willing to meet in the centre and work stuff out, too many people now puff themselves up with confected outrage and race to the extremes and throw rocks at each other.
The moment atheists are mentioned you react like a Salafi, you get aggressive and resort to attempts at insult.

I would respectfully suggest that if you are not equipped to debate without resorting to 6th grade insults when you read something you don't like, just ignore the post and let someone else answer.

Do you load all 17 rds in your 6.5 Grendel mags for your suppressed AR pistol or just 15? Wait, never mind.

 

[lash]

On t

On the contrary, the case above illustrates my point succinctly. I'm not trying to bait a particular response from you, merely understand your viewpoint. Get a grip.

You have been at pains to point out that the ammendments we are "discussing" apply as controls on the government. I am simply pointing out that in the case of the airman above, the government in the guise of the Air Force, apparently abrogated his 1st ammendment rights by demanding he perform a religious act.

Your obvious animosity at being asked simple questions is a perfect example of why the world is going to shit, instead of being willing to meet in the centre and work stuff out, too many people now puff themselves up with confected outrage and race to the extremes and throw rocks at each other.
The moment atheists are mentioned you react like a Salafi, you get aggressive and resort to attempts at insult.

I would respectfully suggest that if you are not equipped to debate without resorting to 6th grade insults when you read something you don't like, just ignore the post and let someone else answer.

It’s obvious now how your country ended up with limited rights. Meeting in the center to “work things out” is exactly how rights are eroded and even eliminated. That’s been the strategy of those wishing to tell others how they should live forever. That’s exactly how our second amendment rights have been eroded. That’s exactly how and why we’re now dealing with the unconstitutional red flag laws.

If you wish to continue to push this discussion towards being about religion, as it seems from my perspective, you may find yourself afoul of this sites posting rules.

 

[308pirate]

You have been at pains to point out that the ammendments we are "discussing" apply as controls on the government. I am simply pointing out that in the case of the airman above, the government in the guise of the Air Force, apparently abrogated his 1st ammendment rights by demanding he perform a religious act.

Well, no shit Sherlock. Governments break laws and violate Constitutional restraints all the fucking time.

Citizens hold them to account using the courts and elections.

By the way, rights are not up for compromise. There's no middle ground on them.

You're not that good at hiding your agenda.

 

[Gaznazdiak]

It’s obvious now how your country ended up with limited rights. Meeting in the center to “work things out” is exactly how rights are eroded and even eliminated. That’s been the strategy of those wishing to tell others how they should live forever. That’s exactly how our second amendment rights have been eroded. That’s exactly how and why we’re now dealing with the unconstitutional red flag laws.

If you wish to continue to push this discussion towards being about religion, as it seems from my perspective, you may find yourself afoul of this sites posting rules.

And rushing to the extremes and throwing rocks is how yours and every other civil war started. Something my country, even with our limited rights, has managed to avoid.

I don't know if what I'm typing here is coming out in Sanskrit on your end, talk about divided by a common language. How many times do I have to say I'm just trying to understand, all the animus has been from your end mate.

I am not "continuing to push" a religious element to the discussion, it was raised by 308 and I have simply sought clarification.
Don't try to put words in my mouth.

I was under the mistaken impression that we had less freedom of expression than you, but the attempts here to shut down discussion, now with an implied threat, leads me to believe the opposite.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[MtnCreek]

We've had two major rebellions, both against tyrannical governments. Sure, we could have sat on our asses and waited for the king to breakup with us, like your country did.

 

[Gaznazdiak]

Well, no shit Sherlock. Governments break laws and violate Constitutional restraints all the fucking time.

Citizens hold them to account using the courts and elections.

By the way, rights are not up for compromise. There's no middle ground on them.

You're not that good at hiding your agenda.

So at last the penny finally drops.
That's all I wanted, an answer to my question.
It seems that even though all I've asked for is a discussion, all you seem to want is to get all pissy and throw your weight around, you must have been an absolute joy to serve under.

I know I'll regret it, but what exactly is my agenda? In your opinion.

On second thoughts, don't bother. I've enjoyed about as much of this "discussion" as I can stand.

I will leave you with one parting thought however, rigid martinets lacking the intellectual integrity to allow for compromise have been the cause of all the conflict ever created.

 

[MtnCreek]

Are you so fucking dense that you think lack of conflict equals peace or freedom?

 

[Kamerad]

And rushing to the extremes and throwing rocks is how yours and every other civil war started. Something my country, even with our limited rights, has managed to avoid.

I don't know if what I'm typing here is coming out in Sanskrit on your end, talk about divided by a common language. How many times do I have to say I'm just trying to understand, all the animus has been from your end mate.

I am not "continuing to push" a religious element to the discussion, it was raised by 308 and I have simply sought clarification.
Don't try to put words in my mouth.

I was under the mistaken impression that we had less freedom of expression than you, but the attempts here to shut down discussion, now with an implied threat, leads me to believe the opposite.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You’re a gamma. Insufferable.

 

[lash]

And rushing to the extremes and throwing rocks is how yours and every other civil war started. Something my country, even with our limited rights, has managed to avoid.

I don't know if what I'm typing here is coming out in Sanskrit on your end, talk about divided by a common language. How many times do I have to say I'm just trying to understand, all the animus has been from your end mate.

I am not "continuing to push" a religious element to the discussion, it was raised by 308 and I have simply sought clarification.
Don't try to put words in my mouth.

I was under the mistaken impression that we had less freedom of expression than you, but the attempts here to shut down discussion, now with an implied threat, leads me to believe the opposite.

Thanks for clearing that up.

“Implied threat” lololol!! How rich. ??