(07-27-2020, 07:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Violence against peaceful protestors and media.

Barr lied about it.

Just to get a photo op for Trump.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/politics/white-house-protest-church/index.html



Can anyone think of a more clear use of gestapo tactics?  Beat up protestors AND MEDIA just to create some propaganda for Trump to appeal to Christians.

(07-27-2020, 10:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They were told to leave and refused to do so. It seems they were given 3 warnings. Playing this up as "just attacking protesters" is intellectually dishonest IMO. You have a right to the 1st Amendment, but it has limits. When told to vacate an area where POTUS is scheduled to appear falls into outside the limits IMO. 

(07-27-2020, 10:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If it is perfectly okay then why did Barr lie about it?

Why did he claim they had to be removed because they were "unruly"?

Doesn't it concern you that teh President and his men are lying their asses off to justify using violence against peaceful protestors?

(07-27-2020, 07:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Violence against peaceful protestors and media.

Barr lied about it.

Just to get a photo op for Trump.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/politics/white-house-protest-church/index.html



Can anyone think of a more clear use of gestapo tactics?  Beat up protestors AND MEDIA just to create some propaganda for Trump to appeal to Christians.

(07-28-2020, 12:49 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Violence against clergy from the local Episcopal diocese, cleared off the church property well before the curfew was in place so that the government could use it...

(07-28-2020, 07:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup. The whole "they were asked to leave" is bullshit when it was the clergy of the church itself that they did this to. That is what a freedom of religion is supposed to protect against, yet we have the government stepping all over their rights in this action. Defending these actions is defending an unconstitutional act and, quite frankly, tyranny.

(07-28-2020, 08:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So there was only clergy left? As I said the Photo Op was stupid, said it the day it happened, but you were instructed clear an area where the President of the United States was coming. What would you expect to happen to you if you refused to leave? 

It's not like these folks were rounded up in cattle cars are taken to concentration camps. They were told to go home. Call it "bullshit" if you want, but that's exactly what they were asked to do. No more, no less. 

(07-28-2020, 08:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Doesn't matter if there were "only clergy." They invaded and confiscated church property from the clergy that were there. That's exactly what they did, and that's unconstitutional.

(07-28-2020, 08:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: "Invaded and confiscated" for about 5 minutes. We're just going to have to disagree on this one. 

(07-28-2020, 08:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No matter how long it was for, the words are still accurate.

(07-28-2020, 08:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: They can be disputed. All that was done was a bath was cleared to stand in from of the church. They didn't invade and wash their feet in the holy water. I get why you< KOS, Rutherford, and others want to frame it as so. But IMO that motive has gone from truth to motivation when we do.

They asked folks to clear an area, they refused. They didn't end religion and burn the bibles. 

(07-28-2020, 08:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They took over church grounds from the clergy. They didn't ask to use it; they took it by force. Even telling them to leave first isn't asking. It was confiscation. There is no other way to see it. When you look at the objective facts, not the subjective truth, they confiscated the church grounds from the clergy.

(07-28-2020, 09:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What part of the photo is church grounds?

(07-28-2020, 09:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The part in front of the church that this image is saying there weren't protesters at but there were. I'm basing my information off of clergy members that were there, on church grounds, and were run off by the officers.

(07-28-2020, 07:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup. The whole "they were asked to leave" is bullshit when it was the clergy of the church itself that they did this to. That is what a freedom of religion is supposed to protect against, yet we have the government stepping all over their rights in this action. Defending these actions is defending an unconstitutional act and, quite frankly, tyranny.

(07-28-2020, 09:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What part of the photo is church grounds?

(07-28-2020, 09:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no doubt clergy were ran off public property. it's the whole confiscate and invade that I find to be perhaps a little embellished for drama's sake. 

(07-28-2020, 09:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yep, they were lying about being on church grounds and being forced to leave. I'm sure that is the more likely scenario in all of this. Not an administration that has consistently lied to the public trying to justify their actions. Yeah, they're more trustworthy than the clergy of the church.

(07-28-2020, 09:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yep, they were lying about being on church grounds and being forced to leave. I'm sure that is the more likely scenario in all of this. Not an administration that has consistently lied to the public trying to justify their actions. Yeah, they're more trustworthy than the clergy of the church.