You stated something which was likely inaccurate. I’m not sure what professional certifications are required in order to be allowed to correct you.
Did you correct the poster that falsely claimed that tear gas was used?
You mean the witness quoted in post #38?
What about the USPP statement?
Reportedly, the police cleared not only the street outside the church but also part of the church property itself. Presumably the church has some interest it can assert to obtain relief from or an inunction against action like that which does affect the church’s property.
Not about using a picture of the building on a public street, though.
Don’t change the subject. Do you concede that St. John’s is private property, in direct contrast to your earlier claim?
He was holding the Bible upside down and backwards. Most Bibles say “Holy Bible” or something similar on the front and that Bible he held was blank. Also you can see the red bookmarks hanging down. They come out the top of a Bible.
If I were a religious person I would think he really is the Antichrist.
I thought the same thing. But just before he holds it up, you can see the printing on the spine and it’s clearly being held rightside up and the front is facing the camera.
Shocking, I know.
The bookmarks are likely oriented that way to match his tie.
You need to consider that your sources of information are not telling you the whole history for a reason.
So, it causes the same tears, same symptoms, but it is green and it has a different name, therefore it is OK… :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yes, a picture taken of a building from a public street or sidewalk is perfectly legal. I can wander my neighborhood taking pix as much as I like. However, as running coach pointed out, publishing the photo has the implication that the church endorses Trump’s action. IANAL but I’m thinking it could be blocked on that ground.
Otherwise he could get a photo-op in front of some state capitol giving that smirky thumb-up he loves to do and run it in a campaign ad, “Look! The governor and legislature of [state] love me! You should, too.”
Or I could stand on the street in front of a Trump hotel, holding up my 50-count bed linens, and proclaiming, “Luxury-hotel-quality sheets!”
my in laws are also Episcopalian, and I was chatting with my mom in law this morning and she had just gotten done with a zoom meeting of the whatever she called it [non whatevered civilian church members that are like a board of directors?] and everybody is ripping pissed about it. She figures he has pretty much alienated a rather high percent of the religious population over that shit. She put it more delicately, me? I am more the grammar of a pissed off drunken marine type =)
Nobody, except possibly the most simple-minded, has ever believed that Trump is a Christian. But evangelicals do say that he is advancing their interests.
It’s like that time a realtor bought up half a block of houses in my neighborhood and boarded them up while waiting for the historical preservation review. Nobody thought the crackheads who burnt them down had any connection to the developer, but he was plenty happy with the damage.
I just want to point out that it was the OTHER Ms. Trump that transported the Bible in her purse.
I never said it was OK. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Since it’s not teargas, why are some news outlets, and not a few people on this board, saying it was?
I think “teargas” is being used as a generic term in this instance. Kinda like how some people would say that someone was carrying mace instead of pepper spray or o/c.
It’s functionally the same. It causes the same reaction. For all intents and purposes, it’s the same thing with a different name.
Why quibble about the nomenclature instead of the actual usage?
Should the news be reporting the actual facts?
The usual bootlickers are eating this up.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/03/donald-trump-church-photo-op-evangelicals
Sorry, but here you are indeed declaring that it was then ok to use, otherwise you would had accepted what other experts reported and condemned the ones that misled you. This point is crucial because I did not refer to you but to the asinine talking point the White House and right wing media used to misled many of their readers or viewers.
This BTW is in the end a distraction, the key thing to not miss is that to get that idiotic photo op, Trump and henchmen decided to remove the first amendment rights of protesters and even remove church members from the premises for propaganda purposes.
To see people still supporting this administration is the real scandal.
And it is really silly to deny why it is used even if one grants the dumb talking point of not being tear gas, it is used not to get people to cry tears of joy or to gasp for air in admiration of the ones that remove the rights of the people and even the religious ones.