AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Average Guy said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

ValleyRatAg said:

---

If I was her father or husband not (I can't tell how old she is) I'd be in jail right now for assaulting a police officer. This **** is out of hand. Over a ****ing mask. When she's with her family, spaced separated out from everyone. **** that guy.

---

I understand where you are coming from. But still, the time to fight cops is in the court room, not durring an arrest. It's a simple principle that you got to stick by, especially if any of the blue staring posters have been telling that to blacks for last several months.

---

Agree.

Two things here:
1) the cop/security officer should have left them alone
2) but since he didn't, she should have complied.

---

This is an oversimplified position many on here continue to take for fear of being labeled a hypocrit, however it's a mistake to continue to espouse this.

George Floyd and Jacob Blake resisted arrest. This lady, though, was not resisting arrest. She was trying to watch an 8th grade football game and was simply not wearing a mask while doing so. I have no problems with her very non-violent attempt to not get handcuffed, and to equate what she did to the many other instances of people resisting arrest on here is silly.

All I can say is good for her, hopefully more like her begin to act out as she did and makes these acts of tyrrany too difficult to continue to be upheld. Peaceful attempts to weaken oppression is good for all of us.

---

She absolutely was resisting arrest. The officer was arresting her for trespassing. The simple act of pulling away and refusing to comply with lawful orders constitutes resisting arrest. Resisting arrest does not have to include violence.

---

But it's intellecutally lazy to consider all resistance equal. The need to say she should have complied in this instance is to essentially equate her scenario with Jacob Blake's or George Floyd's. They aren't the same however.

Conservatives need to be preaching on accepting consequences, not fixating on "not resisting." There's a difference.

---

You're the only one that has compared her resistance to someone else.

It's accurate to say she was resisting arrest.

---

Unless it's to defend prior stances on JB and GF not resisting, why else would any conservative say she shouldn't have resisted arrest? What else would urge so many on here to state such an opinion?

When looking at a video like this, the immediate and natural reaction should be the overreach of the mandates. They are factually real and actively oppressive. They aren't make believe like BLM likes to claim when they state "they are being hunted."

If we believe in freedom we have to be willing to accept the consequences to take/maintain it. Sometimes that means sacrificing ourselves and our own wellbeing.

---

Because resisting arrest is illegal and most people are against breaking the law.

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident. There was an independent policy by the school district. The woman was violating the policy. The woman was asked to leave and she refused. At this point the woman was no longer just violating the policy she was also violating the law (trespassing). The police were notified and then she further broke the law by resisting a lawful arrest.

You can both disagree with the policy and also respect the property rights of others. Bottom line is that if someone tells you to leave their property then you have to leave. You don't get to trespass just because you wanna make some statement about stupid mask policies.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Average Guy said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

ValleyRatAg said:

---

If I was her father or husband not (I can't tell how old she is) I'd be in jail right now for assaulting a police officer. This **** is out of hand. Over a ****ing mask. When she's with her family, spaced separated out from everyone. **** that guy.

---

I understand where you are coming from. But still, the time to fight cops is in the court room, not durring an arrest. It's a simple principle that you got to stick by, especially if any of the blue staring posters have been telling that to blacks for last several months.

---

Agree.

Two things here:
1) the cop/security officer should have left them alone
2) but since he didn't, she should have complied.

---

This is an oversimplified position many on here continue to take for fear of being labeled a hypocrit, however it's a mistake to continue to espouse this.

George Floyd and Jacob Blake resisted arrest. This lady, though, was not resisting arrest. She was trying to watch an 8th grade football game and was simply not wearing a mask while doing so. I have no problems with her very non-violent attempt to not get handcuffed, and to equate what she did to the many other instances of people resisting arrest on here is silly.

All I can say is good for her, hopefully more like her begin to act out as she did and makes these acts of tyrrany too difficult to continue to be upheld. Peaceful attempts to weaken oppression is good for all of us.

---

She absolutely was resisting arrest. The officer was arresting her for trespassing. The simple act of pulling away and refusing to comply with lawful orders constitutes resisting arrest. Resisting arrest does not have to include violence.

---

But it's intellecutally lazy to consider all resistance equal. The need to say she should have complied in this instance is to essentially equate her scenario with Jacob Blake's or George Floyd's. They aren't the same however.

Conservatives need to be preaching on accepting consequences, not fixating on "not resisting." There's a difference.

---

You're the only one that has compared her resistance to someone else.

It's accurate to say she was resisting arrest.

---

Unless it's to defend prior stances on JB and GF not resisting, why else would any conservative say she shouldn't have resisted arrest? What else would urge so many on here to state such an opinion?

When looking at a video like this, the immediate and natural reaction should be the overreach of the mandates. They are factually real and actively oppressive. They aren't make believe like BLM's claims of "being hunted."

If we believe in freedom we have to be willing to accept the consequences to take/maintain it. Sometimes that means sacrificing ourselves and our own wellbeing.

---

Very well stated. People have forgotten that the gradual erosion of liberty and personal responsibility is the exact cause for why our government is so big and we have fewer freedoms than before.

Taking a small civil stand will go a long way to prevent true oppression if done in quantity.

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

AgHunter2011 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. I respect property rights and the property rights of others trump my individual rights when I am on their property. If an establishment is going to require me to do something I don't want to do, then I will either leave or suck it up and comply. I will not violate the property rights of others by trespassing. That is the core issue in this incident. The woman was arrested for trespassing not for refusing to wear a mask.

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Average Guy said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

ValleyRatAg said:

---

If I was her father or husband not (I can't tell how old she is) I'd be in jail right now for assaulting a police officer. This **** is out of hand. Over a ****ing mask. When she's with her family, spaced separated out from everyone. **** that guy.

---

I understand where you are coming from. But still, the time to fight cops is in the court room, not durring an arrest. It's a simple principle that you got to stick by, especially if any of the blue staring posters have been telling that to blacks for last several months.

---

Agree.

Two things here:
1) the cop/security officer should have left them alone
2) but since he didn't, she should have complied.

---

This is an oversimplified position many on here continue to take for fear of being labeled a hypocrit, however it's a mistake to continue to espouse this.

George Floyd and Jacob Blake resisted arrest. This lady, though, was not resisting arrest. She was trying to watch an 8th grade football game and was simply not wearing a mask while doing so. I have no problems with her very non-violent attempt to not get handcuffed, and to equate what she did to the many other instances of people resisting arrest on here is silly.

All I can say is good for her, hopefully more like her begin to act out as she did and makes these acts of tyrrany too difficult to continue to be upheld. Peaceful attempts to weaken oppression is good for all of us.

---

She absolutely was resisting arrest. The officer was arresting her for trespassing. The simple act of pulling away and refusing to comply with lawful orders constitutes resisting arrest. Resisting arrest does not have to include violence.

---

But it's intellecutally lazy to consider all resistance equal. The need to say she should have complied in this instance is to essentially equate her scenario with Jacob Blake's or George Floyd's. They aren't the same however.

Conservatives need to be preaching on accepting consequences, not fixating on "not resisting." There's a difference.

---

You're the only one that has compared her resistance to someone else.

It's accurate to say she was resisting arrest.

---

Unless it's to defend prior stances on JB and GF not resisting, why else would any conservative say she shouldn't have resisted arrest? What else would urge so many on here to state such an opinion?

When looking at a video like this, the immediate and natural reaction should be the overreach of the mandates. They are factually real and actively oppressive. They aren't make believe like BLM likes to claim when they state "they are being hunted."

If we believe in freedom we have to be willing to accept the consequences to take/maintain it. Sometimes that means sacrificing ourselves and our own wellbeing.

---

Because resisting arrest is illegal and most people are against breaking the law.

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident. There was an independent policy by the school district. The woman was violating the policy. The woman was asked to leave and she refused. At this point the woman was no longer just violating the policy she was also violating the law (trespassing). The police were notified and then she further broke the law by resisting a lawful arrest.

You can both disagree with the policy and also respect the property rights of others. Bottom line is that if someone tells you to leave their property then you have to leave. You don't get to trespass just because you wanna make some statement about stupid mask policies.

---

The crux of your argument is that legality means morality. That's a very bad, very dangerous, assumption to make. Just for example, what are your thoughts on abortion? Or how about affirmative action? Those both are legal to this day, yet we see no shortage of calls claiming they're unconstitutional. Should we concede these positions since they are laws already?

And two more points: 1) policies are not law, let's remind ourselves of that; and 2) this was a public school, not private property. The lady had asthma and had a claim at being protected from any policies discriminating against her. They did not have the right to remove her, and even if they did, they were WRONG for doing it. Which is why I support her. Without her making a scene nobody would know to be outraged by how stupid these mask mandates are. The fact that people will be told they are trespassing for not wearing one is all the reason to be infuriated that the law would protect such injustices at a public institution.

Cramp00 said:

---

---

The difference here is, she didn't return to her car to retrieve a weapon. And the people in her immediate vicinity didn't shout at or harass or threaten to fire the officer.
#privilege

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. I respect property rights and the property rights of others trump my individual rights when I am on their property. If an establishment is going to require me to do something I don't want to do, then I will either leave or suck it up and comply. I will not violate the property rights of others by trespassing. That is the core issue in this incident. The woman was arrested for trespassing not for refusing to wear a mask.

---

By that logic you would be ok with masks becoming a lasting societal norm like no shoes no shirt no service has become?

That is exactly the point I was making in that our society is becoming weak and will gladly accept whatever policy the government or fear driven media will push us towards. I'm by no means against the shoes shirt business decision, but masks are completely different.

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Wow this is a bad take. I mean wow.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Average Guy said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

ValleyRatAg said:

---

If I was her father or husband not (I can't tell how old she is) I'd be in jail right now for assaulting a police officer. This **** is out of hand. Over a ****ing mask. When she's with her family, spaced separated out from everyone. **** that guy.

---

I understand where you are coming from. But still, the time to fight cops is in the court room, not durring an arrest. It's a simple principle that you got to stick by, especially if any of the blue staring posters have been telling that to blacks for last several months.

---

Agree.

Two things here:
1) the cop/security officer should have left them alone
2) but since he didn't, she should have complied.

---

This is an oversimplified position many on here continue to take for fear of being labeled a hypocrit, however it's a mistake to continue to espouse this.

George Floyd and Jacob Blake resisted arrest. This lady, though, was not resisting arrest. She was trying to watch an 8th grade football game and was simply not wearing a mask while doing so. I have no problems with her very non-violent attempt to not get handcuffed, and to equate what she did to the many other instances of people resisting arrest on here is silly.

All I can say is good for her, hopefully more like her begin to act out as she did and makes these acts of tyrrany too difficult to continue to be upheld. Peaceful attempts to weaken oppression is good for all of us.

---

She absolutely was resisting arrest. The officer was arresting her for trespassing. The simple act of pulling away and refusing to comply with lawful orders constitutes resisting arrest. Resisting arrest does not have to include violence.

---

But it's intellecutally lazy to consider all resistance equal. The need to say she should have complied in this instance is to essentially equate her scenario with Jacob Blake's or George Floyd's. They aren't the same however.

Conservatives need to be preaching on accepting consequences, not fixating on "not resisting." There's a difference.

---

You're the only one that has compared her resistance to someone else.

It's accurate to say she was resisting arrest.

---

Unless it's to defend prior stances on JB and GF not resisting, why else would any conservative say she shouldn't have resisted arrest? What else would urge so many on here to state such an opinion?

When looking at a video like this, the immediate and natural reaction should be the overreach of the mandates. They are factually real and actively oppressive. They aren't make believe like BLM likes to claim when they state "they are being hunted."

If we believe in freedom we have to be willing to accept the consequences to take/maintain it. Sometimes that means sacrificing ourselves and our own wellbeing.

---

Because resisting arrest is illegal and most people are against breaking the law.

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident. There was an independent policy by the school district. The woman was violating the policy. The woman was asked to leave and she refused. At this point the woman was no longer just violating the policy she was also violating the law (trespassing). The police were notified and then she further broke the law by resisting a lawful arrest.

You can both disagree with the policy and also respect the property rights of others. Bottom line is that if someone tells you to leave their property then you have to leave. You don't get to trespass just because you wanna make some statement about stupid mask policies.

---

The crux of your argument is that legality means morality. That's a very bad, very dangerous, assumption to make. Just for example, what are your thoughts on abortion? Or how about affirmative action? Those both are legal to this day, yet we see no shortage of calls claiming they're unconstitutional. Should we concede these positions since they are laws already?

And two more points: 1) policies are not law, let's remind ourselves of that; and 2) this was a public school, not private property. The lady had asthma and had a claim at being protected from any policies discriminating against her. They did not have the right to remove her, and even if they did, they were WRONG for doing it. Which is why I support her. Without her making a scene nobody would know to be outraged by how stupid these mask mandates are. The fact that people will be told they are trespassing for not wearing one is all the reason to be infuriated that the law would protect such injustices at a public institution.

---

No the crux of my argument is that property rights trump trivial individual rights when you are on their property.

Your questions are irrelevant, but I'll answer them anyway.

Abortion I'm fine with. I don't care when actual people who I don't know die so why should I care about the unborn? It affects me in no way. You can fight to change the law all you want, you can't prevent a woman from legally having an abortion under current law.

Affirmative action is dumb. People should be judged by skill not ethnicity.

Trespassing is a law. The school does have the right to remove her. You don't get to do whatever you want just because it's government property.

People still aren't outraged other than a fringe group online. Her actions will accomplish nothing other than adding another criminal charge to her record. The school district is still going to keep their mask policy and the woman will either comply or not be allowed to attend any more games.

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. I respect property rights and the property rights of others trump my individual rights when I am on their property. If an establishment is going to require me to do something I don't want to do, then I will either leave or suck it up and comply. I will not violate the property rights of others by trespassing. That is the core issue in this incident. The woman was arrested for trespassing not for refusing to wear a mask.

---

Public property <> private property.

And now you're equating nudity to covering your face. Is this the middle east or the US?

Oh, and another thing, even nude beaches were required to enforce mask mandates, so as gross of an argument this is to make, that invalidates the bad equivalency you're trying to make.

The mandates have gone too far.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. I respect property rights and the property rights of others trump my individual rights when I am on their property. If an establishment is going to require me to do something I don't want to do, then I will either leave or suck it up and comply. I will not violate the property rights of others by trespassing. That is the core issue in this incident. The woman was arrested for trespassing not for refusing to wear a mask.

---

Public property <> private property.

And now you're equating nudity to covering your face. Is this the middle east or the US?

Oh, and another thing, even nude beaches were required to enforce mask mandates, so as gross of an argument this is to make, that invalidates the bad equivalency you're trying to make.

The mandates have gone too far.

---

You can't do whatever you want on public property either. Both Public and private facilities have the the right to restrict access and remove people from the property.

Nudity? So not wearing shoes is considered nudity to you? Lol

XpressAg09 said:

---

Cramp00 said:

---

---

The difference here is, she didn't return to her car to retrieve a weapon. And the people in her immediate vicinity didn't shout at or harass or threaten to fire the officer.
#privileg

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. I respect property rights and the property rights of others trump my individual rights when I am on their property. If an establishment is going to require me to do something I don't want to do, then I will either leave or suck it up and comply. I will not violate the property rights of others by trespassing. That is the core issue in this incident. The woman was arrested for trespassing not for refusing to wear a mask.

---

Public property <> private property.

And now you're equating nudity to covering your face. Is this the middle east or the US?

Oh, and another thing, even nude beaches were required to enforce mask mandates, so as gross of an argument this is to make, that invalidates the bad equivalency you're trying to make.

The mandates have gone too far.

---

You can't do whatever you want on public property either. Both Public and private facilities have the the right to restrict access and remove people from the property.

Nudity? So not wearing shoes is considered nudity to you? Lol

---

What about no shirts? Do topless women not fall into the nude category with this?

Quote:

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy.

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Average Guy said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

ValleyRatAg said:

---

If I was her father or husband not (I can't tell how old she is) I'd be in jail right now for assaulting a police officer. This **** is out of hand. Over a ****ing mask. When she's with her family, spaced separated out from everyone. **** that guy.

---

I understand where you are coming from. But still, the time to fight cops is in the court room, not durring an arrest. It's a simple principle that you got to stick by, especially if any of the blue staring posters have been telling that to blacks for last several months.

---

Agree.

Two things here:
1) the cop/security officer should have left them alone
2) but since he didn't, she should have complied.

---

This is an oversimplified position many on here continue to take for fear of being labeled a hypocrit, however it's a mistake to continue to espouse this.

George Floyd and Jacob Blake resisted arrest. This lady, though, was not resisting arrest. She was trying to watch an 8th grade football game and was simply not wearing a mask while doing so. I have no problems with her very non-violent attempt to not get handcuffed, and to equate what she did to the many other instances of people resisting arrest on here is silly.

All I can say is good for her, hopefully more like her begin to act out as she did and makes these acts of tyrrany too difficult to continue to be upheld. Peaceful attempts to weaken oppression is good for all of us.

---

She absolutely was resisting arrest. The officer was arresting her for trespassing. The simple act of pulling away and refusing to comply with lawful orders constitutes resisting arrest. Resisting arrest does not have to include violence.

---

But it's intellecutally lazy to consider all resistance equal. The need to say she should have complied in this instance is to essentially equate her scenario with Jacob Blake's or George Floyd's. They aren't the same however.

Conservatives need to be preaching on accepting consequences, not fixating on "not resisting." There's a difference.

---

You're the only one that has compared her resistance to someone else.

It's accurate to say she was resisting arrest.

---

Unless it's to defend prior stances on JB and GF not resisting, why else would any conservative say she shouldn't have resisted arrest? What else would urge so many on here to state such an opinion?

When looking at a video like this, the immediate and natural reaction should be the overreach of the mandates. They are factually real and actively oppressive. They aren't make believe like BLM likes to claim when they state "they are being hunted."

If we believe in freedom we have to be willing to accept the consequences to take/maintain it. Sometimes that means sacrificing ourselves and our own wellbeing.

---

Because resisting arrest is illegal and most people are against breaking the law.

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident. There was an independent policy by the school district. The woman was violating the policy. The woman was asked to leave and she refused. At this point the woman was no longer just violating the policy she was also violating the law (trespassing). The police were notified and then she further broke the law by resisting a lawful arrest.

You can both disagree with the policy and also respect the property rights of others. Bottom line is that if someone tells you to leave their property then you have to leave. You don't get to trespass just because you wanna make some statement about stupid mask policies.

---

The crux of your argument is that legality means morality. That's a very bad, very dangerous, assumption to make. Just for example, what are your thoughts on abortion? Or how about affirmative action? Those both are legal to this day, yet we see no shortage of calls claiming they're unconstitutional. Should we concede these positions since they are laws already?

And two more points: 1) policies are not law, let's remind ourselves of that; and 2) this was a public school, not private property. The lady had asthma and had a claim at being protected from any policies discriminating against her. They did not have the right to remove her, and even if they did, they were WRONG for doing it. Which is why I support her. Without her making a scene nobody would know to be outraged by how stupid these mask mandates are. The fact that people will be told they are trespassing for not wearing one is all the reason to be infuriated that the law would protect such injustices at a public institution.

---

No the crux of my argument is that property rights trump trivial individual rights when you are on their property.

Your questions are irrelevant, but I'll answer them anyway.

Abortion I'm fine with. I don't care when actual people who I don't know die so why should I care about the unborn? It affects me in no way. You can fight to change the law all you want, you can't prevent a woman from legally having an abortion under current law.

Affirmative action is dumb. People should be judged by skill not ethnicity.

Trespassing is a law. The school does have the right to remove her. You don't get to do whatever you want just because it's government property.

People still aren't outraged other than a fringe group online. Her actions will accomplish nothing other than adding another criminal charge to her record. The school district is still going to keep their mask policy and the woman will either comply or not be allowed to attend any more games.

---

You're missing the biggest point. Her breaking the law doesn't mean you can't support her. If she broke the law, then I'm glad. More conservatives should be supporting her than they've shown on this thread.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. I respect property rights and the property rights of others trump my individual rights when I am on their property. If an establishment is going to require me to do something I don't want to do, then I will either leave or suck it up and comply. I will not violate the property rights of others by trespassing. That is the core issue in this incident. The woman was arrested for trespassing not for refusing to wear a mask.

---

Public property <> private property.

And now you're equating nudity to covering your face. Is this the middle east or the US?

Oh, and another thing, even nude beaches were required to enforce mask mandates, so as gross of an argument this is to make, that invalidates the bad equivalency you're trying to make.

The mandates have gone too far.

---

You can't do whatever you want on public property either. Both Public and private facilities have the the right to restrict access and remove people from the property.

Nudity? So not wearing shoes is considered nudity to you? Lol

---

What about no shirts? Do topless women not fall into the nude category with this?

Quote:

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy.

---

---

Why are you emphasizing only one portion of the policy? A person wearing a shirt but no shoes will also be refused service.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Average Guy said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

ValleyRatAg said:

---

If I was her father or husband not (I can't tell how old she is) I'd be in jail right now for assaulting a police officer. This **** is out of hand. Over a ****ing mask. When she's with her family, spaced separated out from everyone. **** that guy.

---

I understand where you are coming from. But still, the time to fight cops is in the court room, not durring an arrest. It's a simple principle that you got to stick by, especially if any of the blue staring posters have been telling that to blacks for last several months.

---

Agree.

Two things here:
1) the cop/security officer should have left them alone
2) but since he didn't, she should have complied.

---

This is an oversimplified position many on here continue to take for fear of being labeled a hypocrit, however it's a mistake to continue to espouse this.

George Floyd and Jacob Blake resisted arrest. This lady, though, was not resisting arrest. She was trying to watch an 8th grade football game and was simply not wearing a mask while doing so. I have no problems with her very non-violent attempt to not get handcuffed, and to equate what she did to the many other instances of people resisting arrest on here is silly.

All I can say is good for her, hopefully more like her begin to act out as she did and makes these acts of tyrrany too difficult to continue to be upheld. Peaceful attempts to weaken oppression is good for all of us.

---

She absolutely was resisting arrest. The officer was arresting her for trespassing. The simple act of pulling away and refusing to comply with lawful orders constitutes resisting arrest. Resisting arrest does not have to include violence.

---

But it's intellecutally lazy to consider all resistance equal. The need to say she should have complied in this instance is to essentially equate her scenario with Jacob Blake's or George Floyd's. They aren't the same however.

Conservatives need to be preaching on accepting consequences, not fixating on "not resisting." There's a difference.

---

You're the only one that has compared her resistance to someone else.

It's accurate to say she was resisting arrest.

---

Unless it's to defend prior stances on JB and GF not resisting, why else would any conservative say she shouldn't have resisted arrest? What else would urge so many on here to state such an opinion?

When looking at a video like this, the immediate and natural reaction should be the overreach of the mandates. They are factually real and actively oppressive. They aren't make believe like BLM likes to claim when they state "they are being hunted."

If we believe in freedom we have to be willing to accept the consequences to take/maintain it. Sometimes that means sacrificing ourselves and our own wellbeing.

---

Because resisting arrest is illegal and most people are against breaking the law.

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident. There was an independent policy by the school district. The woman was violating the policy. The woman was asked to leave and she refused. At this point the woman was no longer just violating the policy she was also violating the law (trespassing). The police were notified and then she further broke the law by resisting a lawful arrest.

You can both disagree with the policy and also respect the property rights of others. Bottom line is that if someone tells you to leave their property then you have to leave. You don't get to trespass just because you wanna make some statement about stupid mask policies.

---

The crux of your argument is that legality means morality. That's a very bad, very dangerous, assumption to make. Just for example, what are your thoughts on abortion? Or how about affirmative action? Those both are legal to this day, yet we see no shortage of calls claiming they're unconstitutional. Should we concede these positions since they are laws already?

And two more points: 1) policies are not law, let's remind ourselves of that; and 2) this was a public school, not private property. The lady had asthma and had a claim at being protected from any policies discriminating against her. They did not have the right to remove her, and even if they did, they were WRONG for doing it. Which is why I support her. Without her making a scene nobody would know to be outraged by how stupid these mask mandates are. The fact that people will be told they are trespassing for not wearing one is all the reason to be infuriated that the law would protect such injustices at a public institution.

---

No the crux of my argument is that property rights trump trivial individual rights when you are on their property.

Your questions are irrelevant, but I'll answer them anyway.

Abortion I'm fine with. I don't care when actual people who I don't know die so why should I care about the unborn? It affects me in no way. You can fight to change the law all you want, you can't prevent a woman from legally having an abortion under current law.

Affirmative action is dumb. People should be judged by skill not ethnicity.

Trespassing is a law. The school does have the right to remove her. You don't get to do whatever you want just because it's government property.

People still aren't outraged other than a fringe group online. Her actions will accomplish nothing other than adding another criminal charge to her record. The school district is still going to keep their mask policy and the woman will either comply or not be allowed to attend any more games.

---

You're missing the biggest point. Her breaking the law doesn't mean you can't support her. If she broke the law, then I'm glad. More conservatives should be supporting her than they've shown on this thread.

---

I don't care if you support her or not. Maybe you should donate to the GoFundMe account I'm sure she has already set up.

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. I respect property rights and the property rights of others trump my individual rights when I am on their property. If an establishment is going to require me to do something I don't want to do, then I will either leave or suck it up and comply. I will not violate the property rights of others by trespassing. That is the core issue in this incident. The woman was arrested for trespassing not for refusing to wear a mask.

---

Public property <> private property.

And now you're equating nudity to covering your face. Is this the middle east or the US?

Oh, and another thing, even nude beaches were required to enforce mask mandates, so as gross of an argument this is to make, that invalidates the bad equivalency you're trying to make.

The mandates have gone too far.

---

You can't do whatever you want on public property either. Both Public and private facilities have the the right to restrict access and remove people from the property.

Nudity? So not wearing shoes is considered nudity to you? Lol

---

What about no shirts? Do topless women not fall into the nude category with this?

Quote:

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy.

---

---

Why are you emphasizing only one portion of the policy? A person wearing a shirt but no shoes will also be refused service.

---

Wink, wink. Remember when I said even nude beaches were requiring masks.... Not even places that don't require the no shoes, no shirt policy could escape the mandates....

The other part was just in fun, however still very accurate.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. I respect property rights and the property rights of others trump my individual rights when I am on their property. If an establishment is going to require me to do something I don't want to do, then I will either leave or suck it up and comply. I will not violate the property rights of others by trespassing. That is the core issue in this incident. The woman was arrested for trespassing not for refusing to wear a mask.

---

Public property <> private property.

And now you're equating nudity to covering your face. Is this the middle east or the US?

Oh, and another thing, even nude beaches were required to enforce mask mandates, so as gross of an argument this is to make, that invalidates the bad equivalency you're trying to make.

The mandates have gone too far.

---

You can't do whatever you want on public property either. Both Public and private facilities have the the right to restrict access and remove people from the property.

Nudity? So not wearing shoes is considered nudity to you? Lol

---

What about no shirts? Do topless women not fall into the nude category with this?

Quote:

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy.

---

---

Why are you emphasizing only one portion of the policy? A person wearing a shirt but no shoes will also be refused service.

---

Wink, wink. Remember when I said even nude beaches were requiring masks.... Not even places that don't require the no shoes, no shirt policy could escape the mandates....

The other part was just in fun, however still very accurate.

---

Where are the legal nude beaches in this country?

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Average Guy said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

ValleyRatAg said:

---

If I was her father or husband not (I can't tell how old she is) I'd be in jail right now for assaulting a police officer. This **** is out of hand. Over a ****ing mask. When she's with her family, spaced separated out from everyone. **** that guy.

---

I understand where you are coming from. But still, the time to fight cops is in the court room, not durring an arrest. It's a simple principle that you got to stick by, especially if any of the blue staring posters have been telling that to blacks for last several months.

---

Agree.

Two things here:
1) the cop/security officer should have left them alone
2) but since he didn't, she should have complied.

---

This is an oversimplified position many on here continue to take for fear of being labeled a hypocrit, however it's a mistake to continue to espouse this.

George Floyd and Jacob Blake resisted arrest. This lady, though, was not resisting arrest. She was trying to watch an 8th grade football game and was simply not wearing a mask while doing so. I have no problems with her very non-violent attempt to not get handcuffed, and to equate what she did to the many other instances of people resisting arrest on here is silly.

All I can say is good for her, hopefully more like her begin to act out as she did and makes these acts of tyrrany too difficult to continue to be upheld. Peaceful attempts to weaken oppression is good for all of us.

---

She absolutely was resisting arrest. The officer was arresting her for trespassing. The simple act of pulling away and refusing to comply with lawful orders constitutes resisting arrest. Resisting arrest does not have to include violence.

---

But it's intellecutally lazy to consider all resistance equal. The need to say she should have complied in this instance is to essentially equate her scenario with Jacob Blake's or George Floyd's. They aren't the same however.

Conservatives need to be preaching on accepting consequences, not fixating on "not resisting." There's a difference.

---

You're the only one that has compared her resistance to someone else.

It's accurate to say she was resisting arrest.

---

Unless it's to defend prior stances on JB and GF not resisting, why else would any conservative say she shouldn't have resisted arrest? What else would urge so many on here to state such an opinion?

When looking at a video like this, the immediate and natural reaction should be the overreach of the mandates. They are factually real and actively oppressive. They aren't make believe like BLM likes to claim when they state "they are being hunted."

If we believe in freedom we have to be willing to accept the consequences to take/maintain it. Sometimes that means sacrificing ourselves and our own wellbeing.

---

Because resisting arrest is illegal and most people are against breaking the law.

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident. There was an independent policy by the school district. The woman was violating the policy. The woman was asked to leave and she refused. At this point the woman was no longer just violating the policy she was also violating the law (trespassing). The police were notified and then she further broke the law by resisting a lawful arrest.

You can both disagree with the policy and also respect the property rights of others. Bottom line is that if someone tells you to leave their property then you have to leave. You don't get to trespass just because you wanna make some statement about stupid mask policies.

---

The crux of your argument is that legality means morality. That's a very bad, very dangerous, assumption to make. Just for example, what are your thoughts on abortion? Or how about affirmative action? Those both are legal to this day, yet we see no shortage of calls claiming they're unconstitutional. Should we concede these positions since they are laws already?

And two more points: 1) policies are not law, let's remind ourselves of that; and 2) this was a public school, not private property. The lady had asthma and had a claim at being protected from any policies discriminating against her. They did not have the right to remove her, and even if they did, they were WRONG for doing it. Which is why I support her. Without her making a scene nobody would know to be outraged by how stupid these mask mandates are. The fact that people will be told they are trespassing for not wearing one is all the reason to be infuriated that the law would protect such injustices at a public institution.

---

No the crux of my argument is that property rights trump trivial individual rights when you are on their property.

Your questions are irrelevant, but I'll answer them anyway.

Abortion I'm fine with. I don't care when actual people who I don't know die so why should I care about the unborn? It affects me in no way. You can fight to change the law all you want, you can't prevent a woman from legally having an abortion under current law.

Affirmative action is dumb. People should be judged by skill not ethnicity.

Trespassing is a law. The school does have the right to remove her. You don't get to do whatever you want just because it's government property.

People still aren't outraged other than a fringe group online. Her actions will accomplish nothing other than adding another criminal charge to her record. The school district is still going to keep their mask policy and the woman will either comply or not be allowed to attend any more games.

---

You're missing the biggest point. Her breaking the law doesn't mean you can't support her. If she broke the law, then I'm glad. More conservatives should be supporting her than they've shown on this thread.

---

I don't care if you support her or not. Maybe you should donate to the GoFundMe account I'm sure she has already set up.

---

I assume you aren't a conservative; your position on abortion says as much. In which case, you weren't really my target audience, conservatives saying she shouldn't have resisted arrest are the ones I was targeting.

Agree to disagree. Thats fine by me.

If the government mandated walking backwards a lot of sheeple would do it without question.

Change my mind.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Average Guy said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

ValleyRatAg said:

---

If I was her father or husband not (I can't tell how old she is) I'd be in jail right now for assaulting a police officer. This **** is out of hand. Over a ****ing mask. When she's with her family, spaced separated out from everyone. **** that guy.

---

I understand where you are coming from. But still, the time to fight cops is in the court room, not durring an arrest. It's a simple principle that you got to stick by, especially if any of the blue staring posters have been telling that to blacks for last several months.

---

Agree.

Two things here:
1) the cop/security officer should have left them alone
2) but since he didn't, she should have complied.

---

This is an oversimplified position many on here continue to take for fear of being labeled a hypocrit, however it's a mistake to continue to espouse this.

George Floyd and Jacob Blake resisted arrest. This lady, though, was not resisting arrest. She was trying to watch an 8th grade football game and was simply not wearing a mask while doing so. I have no problems with her very non-violent attempt to not get handcuffed, and to equate what she did to the many other instances of people resisting arrest on here is silly.

All I can say is good for her, hopefully more like her begin to act out as she did and makes these acts of tyrrany too difficult to continue to be upheld. Peaceful attempts to weaken oppression is good for all of us.

---

She absolutely was resisting arrest. The officer was arresting her for trespassing. The simple act of pulling away and refusing to comply with lawful orders constitutes resisting arrest. Resisting arrest does not have to include violence.

---

But it's intellecutally lazy to consider all resistance equal. The need to say she should have complied in this instance is to essentially equate her scenario with Jacob Blake's or George Floyd's. They aren't the same however.

Conservatives need to be preaching on accepting consequences, not fixating on "not resisting." There's a difference.

---

You're the only one that has compared her resistance to someone else.

It's accurate to say she was resisting arrest.

---

Unless it's to defend prior stances on JB and GF not resisting, why else would any conservative say she shouldn't have resisted arrest? What else would urge so many on here to state such an opinion?

When looking at a video like this, the immediate and natural reaction should be the overreach of the mandates. They are factually real and actively oppressive. They aren't make believe like BLM likes to claim when they state "they are being hunted."

If we believe in freedom we have to be willing to accept the consequences to take/maintain it. Sometimes that means sacrificing ourselves and our own wellbeing.

---

Because resisting arrest is illegal and most people are against breaking the law.

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident. There was an independent policy by the school district. The woman was violating the policy. The woman was asked to leave and she refused. At this point the woman was no longer just violating the policy she was also violating the law (trespassing). The police were notified and then she further broke the law by resisting a lawful arrest.

You can both disagree with the policy and also respect the property rights of others. Bottom line is that if someone tells you to leave their property then you have to leave. You don't get to trespass just because you wanna make some statement about stupid mask policies.

---

The crux of your argument is that legality means morality. That's a very bad, very dangerous, assumption to make. Just for example, what are your thoughts on abortion? Or how about affirmative action? Those both are legal to this day, yet we see no shortage of calls claiming they're unconstitutional. Should we concede these positions since they are laws already?

And two more points: 1) policies are not law, let's remind ourselves of that; and 2) this was a public school, not private property. The lady had asthma and had a claim at being protected from any policies discriminating against her. They did not have the right to remove her, and even if they did, they were WRONG for doing it. Which is why I support her. Without her making a scene nobody would know to be outraged by how stupid these mask mandates are. The fact that people will be told they are trespassing for not wearing one is all the reason to be infuriated that the law would protect such injustices at a public institution.

---

No the crux of my argument is that property rights trump trivial individual rights when you are on their property.

Your questions are irrelevant, but I'll answer them anyway.

Abortion I'm fine with. I don't care when actual people who I don't know die so why should I care about the unborn? It affects me in no way. You can fight to change the law all you want, you can't prevent a woman from legally having an abortion under current law.

Affirmative action is dumb. People should be judged by skill not ethnicity.

Trespassing is a law. The school does have the right to remove her. You don't get to do whatever you want just because it's government property.

People still aren't outraged other than a fringe group online. Her actions will accomplish nothing other than adding another criminal charge to her record. The school district is still going to keep their mask policy and the woman will either comply or not be allowed to attend any more games.

---

You're missing the biggest point. Her breaking the law doesn't mean you can't support her. If she broke the law, then I'm glad. More conservatives should be supporting her than they've shown on this thread.

---

I don't care if you support her or not. Maybe you should donate to the GoFundMe account I'm sure she has already set up.

---

I assume you aren't a conservative; your position on abortion says as much. In which case, you weren't really my target audience, conservatives saying she shouldn't have resisted arrest are the ones I was targeting.

Agree to disagree. Thats fine by me.

---

I actually am and I'll be voting for Trump. I'm just not an religious conservative. Abortion and gay marriage are among the most irrelevant issues today imo.

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. I respect property rights and the property rights of others trump my individual rights when I am on their property. If an establishment is going to require me to do something I don't want to do, then I will either leave or suck it up and comply. I will not violate the property rights of others by trespassing. That is the core issue in this incident. The woman was arrested for trespassing not for refusing to wear a mask.

---

Public property <> private property.

And now you're equating nudity to covering your face. Is this the middle east or the US?

Oh, and another thing, even nude beaches were required to enforce mask mandates, so as gross of an argument this is to make, that invalidates the bad equivalency you're trying to make.

The mandates have gone too far.

---

You can't do whatever you want on public property either. Both Public and private facilities have the the right to restrict access and remove people from the property.

Nudity? So not wearing shoes is considered nudity to you? Lol

---

What about no shirts? Do topless women not fall into the nude category with this?

Quote:

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy.

---

---

Why are you emphasizing only one portion of the policy? A person wearing a shirt but no shoes will also be refused service.

---

Wink, wink. Remember when I said even nude beaches were requiring masks.... Not even places that don't require the no shoes, no shirt policy could escape the mandates....

The other part was just in fun, however still very accurate.

---

Where are the legal nude beaches in this country?

---

I am bowing out of my debate with you on this. If you want to do the googling, feel free.

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AgHunter2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The governor's mandate had nothing to do with this incident.

---

Disagree. If the governor did not force the mandate, it is entirely possible if not highly probable that there would not have been a mask policy in place at that game.

Its hypothetical of course, but to be honest your opinion enables oppressive policies. We all know that once you give up small freedoms, you almost never get them back.

---

We'll see what happens in Florida. I'm guessing several business will keep their mask policies for the time being even though the state no longer requires it.

That's stupid. Mask policies aren't going to last into perpetuity. This isn't the fight against "oppression" you're trying to pretend it is.

---

Is it a stupid perspective? While I agree mask policies will not be around forever, one has to acknowledge that these supposedly short term policies have prolonged for significantly longer than they originally told us AND they refuse to commit to some sort of defined risk to where they will be reduced or eliminated. They are essentially passing off freedom of assembly restrictions to business owners and people via fear and overreaching policies.

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. I respect property rights and the property rights of others trump my individual rights when I am on their property. If an establishment is going to require me to do something I don't want to do, then I will either leave or suck it up and comply. I will not violate the property rights of others by trespassing. That is the core issue in this incident. The woman was arrested for trespassing not for refusing to wear a mask.

---

Public property <> private property.

And now you're equating nudity to covering your face. Is this the middle east or the US?

Oh, and another thing, even nude beaches were required to enforce mask mandates, so as gross of an argument this is to make, that invalidates the bad equivalency you're trying to make.

The mandates have gone too far.

---

You can't do whatever you want on public property either. Both Public and private facilities have the the right to restrict access and remove people from the property.

Nudity? So not wearing shoes is considered nudity to you? Lol

---

What about no shirts? Do topless women not fall into the nude category with this?

Quote:

---

So? mask policies are no more oppressive than a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy.

---

---

Why are you emphasizing only one portion of the policy? A person wearing a shirt but no shoes will also be refused service.

---

Wink, wink. Remember when I said even nude beaches were requiring masks.... Not even places that don't require the no shoes, no shirt policy could escape the mandates....

The other part was just in fun, however still very accurate.

---

Where are the legal nude beaches in this country?

---

Here I'll answer my own question.
https://30a.com/10-nude-beaches-to-visit-in-us/

Oregon:

Mask are not required on beaches.
https://govstatus.egov.com/or-oha-face-coverings

Florida has no mask requirements.

New Jersey does not require mask on beaches.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.northjersey.com/amp/5397545002

Nevada:

Mask are not required at it's nude beach.

https://www.ktnv.com/news/coronavirus/mask-mandate-what-you-need-to-know-in-nevada

The story is the same with the rest of the places on that list. The mask requirements only require you to wear a mask if there is less than 6 feet between groups. That's not going to apply to beaches except during very crowded events which aren't being allowed right now anyway.

So yeah, you were wrong on that one too.

He ain't do enough.