Posts by Matthew Young35

Jigsaw said:🤣

And I suppose I have to give it a shot—damn it, you can see he outmaneuvered me with that clever sense of humor of his.
What else is there to do?

Paul Martinez73 said:The term "Libtard" is used every single day, just like how unknown calls me unknown, or how unknown calls someone an aggressive mess. Even Roger Federer fans get called Fedtardi and so on... besides, Henry gave me a perfectly good insult today, so I'm not exactly crying about it.

No need to go running to the mods; being called a Libtard isn't an insult, and I wasn't even talking to you directly—but if you felt targeted, that’s on you. If I remember correctly, you called me a Republican once before, so I don't think I'm really the one throwing insults here 🤷

Do you have any idea what I'd like to do about the names unknown, unknown, or Henry call you?

And just to be clear, my previous comment was aimed at me, given that you were replying to my post and addressing me throughout.

Labeling someone a supporter of the current ruling party—even if they hold power indefinitely—can hardly be interpreted as an insult.

On the other hand, I certainly take "Libtard" as one. I am a liberal, yes, but I don't consider myself retarded, and I find that particular label offensive.

Paul Martinez73 said:I honestly can't tell if you're refusing to understand or if you just can't. I'm starting to question your mental capacity at this point. It seems pretty obvious to me that you're just trolling, but whatever.

Let me break it down for you one more time—maybe then it'll sink in.

Actual documentation would mean filming IN FRONT OF the church! Calling the police, having a police report, and expecting the police to actually act on a tip!

What happened was illegal UNAUTHORIZED FILMING on PRIVATE PROPERTY! And under the law, if someone interferes with your property, you have the right to use reasonable force to defend it. Basically, you're allowed to push someone off your land.

I don't know if the ALL CAPS helped you grasp the concept.

If the police had received a formal report, they would have shown up just like they always do.

Yes, now that you've resorted to shouting in all caps, I see your point.
It's funny how you don't seem bothered by people organizing large gatherings in the middle of a pandemic that quite literally brought the entire nation's economy to its knees, yet you find it a huge issue that someone tried to film it—or that someone was physically assaulted for doing so.

Everything is perfectly clear.

Paul Martinez73 said:The cops aren't coming :kme:
Some reporter shows up at Mass and tries to sneak footage behind closed doors twice because she knows she’s not allowed inside :kme:

Their attempts at making excuses are honestly just laughable.

Journalists are basically playing judge and jury now.

And the other day they were all crying because Andrej Plenković wants to turn this into a police state and control them by introducing bans... those libtards are something else, they can't even decide what they want to allow or what they want to protest 🤣

Would they be against lockdowns, against the virus, for lockdowns, or for the laws, or against the laws? How are you supposed to keep track of all that, Matthew Young35? You're going to burn out...

Ziza already explained how invitations work to you using that rager at the Factory, go check it out. You can invite anyone you want, but you still have the right to bar someone from your own property if you don't like how they're acting, get it? Even if you invited them, they still don't have the right to film you on your own land. Period.

Go screw those libtards.
☕

Kudos to the moderators for actually allowing insults like that.

As for the lockdowns and everything else, you're barking up the wrong tree. My stance has been clear and unambiguous from the very beginning.

The reporter isn't playing judge and jury here; she’s simply trying to document and expose blatant legal violations that the police refuse to address—even after they were clearly flagged. That is, after all, one of the fundamental roles of the press.
Once the facts are out, those breaking the law immediately turn around and attack the journalist.

And yet, you all continue to bend over backwards to protect them.

Amy Nelson4 said:If you actually bothered to read the discussion—which I'm assuming you didn't—I never once said or even hinted that the attacks on journalists were okay. Honestly, there isn't even room for that implication in my argument.
Can we please get back to what was actually said instead of focusing on whatever you're trying to project onto me?

So, let's talk about the facts rather than your implications.
Fine by me.

The local preacher announces a service and invites everyone to attend.
People show up.
A reporter arrives to film the crowd.
Some random bystander attacks her.
Then, some guys on Reddit joke that the reporter is at fault for "provoking" them, rather than acknowledging she was simply documenting a blatant violation of the law.

Correct me if I’ve misrepresented the sequence of events.

EDIT:
One small addition: the police clearly had zero interest in preventing this illegal gathering. Calling them was a waste of time; they knew exactly what was happening, just like everyone else did.

Amy Nelson4 said:Wait, when did I ever say it was okay to beat someone up?

It’s heavily implied.

Why do you feel the need to play dumb?

Paul Martinez73 said:Where is Zivana? If there’s no video footage, I’m just not taking her seriously! I mean, listen to that concert...
Index claims they kept their distance and listened peacefully, but those folks inside the church weren't keeping any distance and certainly weren't being quiet.

Does anyone have Zivana's Facebook so I can drop a link? These people definitely wouldn't be attacking her—bless whoever actually enjoys those melodic tones and a light two-step.

I bet Ziza will claim that the indoor set was one thing and this outdoor one is another. Because apparently, having 15 people in an enclosed space for 40 minutes is incredibly dangerous, especially when you're spread over 300 square feet. It's way more hazardous than this, if he just calculates the exact percentage of how much more dangerous it is...

P.S. Is there an IRS agent in here? We need to sue Imbex for sexism.

Are you aware that you are completely off-topic? And that the journalist being torn apart by the mob in the church wasn't even from Index?

Amy Nelson4 said:So, I guess it's perfectly fine to trespass on private property now if some journalist decides they feel like it?

Oh, so now it’s illegal to defend yourself because you invited a crowd onto your own land and someone filmed you following the law?
Good grief, just how far are these radicals willing to go?

Paul Martinez73 said:So you're basically advocating for breaking the law here?
Look, you can report things, take photos, or film people coming in and out of a church, and if the police won't act, sure, write a killer exposé about it. You can even bug the priest after service or give him a call. But you cannot just barge onto private property, regardless of what you think your reasoning is. Even the cops aren't allowed to do that.

"Entering private property can result in a civil trespass lawsuit or in criminal charges. To trespass means you’ve entered the property without consent, or you’ve refused to leave when asked. In most states, it’s fine to approach a person’s home or business to ask the owner or occupant whether she will, for example, agree to be interviewed. But once she refuses or asks you to leave, remaining there is a trespass. You also can’t enter private property simply because you want to gather news there (e.g., to capture photos or video)."

You can, provided you've been invited.
The priest extended an invitation to everyone at the church.
Or do you honestly believe he was calling out specific names and surnames to attend the service?

If he issued an invitation to the mass, and the invitation was open, then a journalist is perfectly entitled to show up.

brightpilot6 said:So, I already said it—you report it, and if you see that the authorities aren't doing anything about it, you start taking pictures. In that case, you go (i) through media pressure. It’s basically the standard operating procedure when you're dealing with a broken system like ours.

The thing is, that idiot Pope had been announcing this for days, and the institutions still DIDN'T react.
Why on earth would you expect the authorities to care about a phone call when they won't even budge for the Pope's public statements?

Paul Martinez73 said:Look, she was standing right outside that church the whole time and saw maybe fifteen people max. So it wasn't a hundred, and it definitely wasn't a thousand. There was zero risk. She could have just called the police and then put together a story if they failed to act. Wait it out and do what needs to be done.

I’d say the same about you—you're either trolling or just plain clueless, though I suspect you're just being stubborn.

If my friend announces a party at a nightclub, first of all, a journalist wouldn't even be allowed inside. Anything they filmed would leave them wide open to a lawsuit since they'd be filming a private party on private property. Does that click for you now? A journalist isn't the Department of Inspection; there is no Vested Interest here, so what are you even on about?

A journalist is like a sanitation worker; if they witness a crime, they're obligated to report it. They can do their job in a public space without bothering anyone, but once they cross those lines, they need permission and consent.

😵
The entire country knew about this days before it happened.
Do you want to know how?
The damn priest announced it himself and invited everyone.
Why on earth would a reporter need to call the cops for something that's been common knowledge for days?
She was there to witness and film exactly what the priest promised and organized.

If my friend hosted a party at his Factory and reported it, first off, a journalist wouldn't even be allowed inside. Anything they filmed would leave them wide open to a lawsuit because they were filming a private party on private property. Is that clear enough for you? A journalist isn't the Department of Inspection; there is no Vested Interest here. What are you even on about?

If your friend actually did that—assuming he wasn't in the Republican Party and wasn't a priest—he’d be hauled in for questioning immediately after publishing, and he'd probably end up announcing the party was canceled right after.
☕

A journalist is like a sanitation worker; if they see a law being broken, they are obligated to report it. They can do their job in public spaces without bothering anyone, but once they cross those lines, they need permission and consent.

A journalist doesn't need to report something that the police obviously already know about—and they know because the lawbreaker himself announced it.
In this case, the journalist is there to show the public how much the Church couldn't care less about regulations and how they believe they are above the law.
A job well done.

Paul Martinez73 said:Where exactly am I wrong?

Your very first letter was 'Z'...
Which means everything else follows suit.

Paul Martinez73 said:Regardless of what anyone thinks about it, that's the official coat of arms. It’s perfectly legal as it stands. You can't exactly play both sides—invoking the state and its laws one minute, then trying to decide for yourself what's actually lawful the next... This whole thing is completely within the bounds of American law.

It actually was banned, and I am old enough to remember when Budisa went to negotiate with the HOS members that Harmon had barred from the Starčević community center—back when we nearly slipped into a civil war among Americans right in the middle of Washington, D.C.
Perhaps you're a bit too young to recall those days.
And just because it isn't prohibited today doesn't mean we should be proud of it.

The best part of this whole mess, if you can call it that, is how Bozinovic handled it... he mentioned that the department already gave the Church authority a heads-up.

It’s a subtle way of suggesting that the Church authority actually holds more sway than the police.

Paul Martinez73 said:So, let me get this straight... if you told me you were inviting five friends over for your birthday, would you actually back me up if I decided to break into your house just to film you and your buddies? You’re basically acting like you're above the law, completely ignoring the regulations set by the state...

Or do you think I should probably call the cops and report you instead?

Give me a break... you know you're full of it.

We aren't talking about some private gathering here.

I've always been curious about why those HOS members included the ZDS on their emblem.
🤔
They’re definitely running some kind of operation...

steelharbor9 said:Look, he didn't actually assault anyone, so...🤷

Are you telling me they haven't even reported him yet?

restlesssurfer97 said:Look, let's just try to strip away all the noise from the last fifteen pages of this debate and break it down into two basic camps.

On one side, you’ve got people who aren't even questioning it—they know the cop totally screwed up, there's absolutely no excuse for how he acted, and honestly, he’s already been arrested so he'll have to answer for it.

Then you have the other camp, where everyone is basically singing in unison about how the officer was just doing her job honorably and didn't provoke anything at all.

I swear, I keep reading that second take over and over again and it actually drives me crazy because I seriously cannot wrap my head around how anyone could hold that position without being a complete troll.🤣🤣😂🤣

She should have been filming how the state regulations were being bypassed, rather than just looking for a fight.
What the hell?
It was obvious from the start that they were going to bend the rules just to hold that Mass. And then she goes out and films the whole thing? What kind of blatant provocation is that?
If anyone was looking for a fight, it was the priest and those idiots who showed up to Mass. They were the ones instigating it. The journalist? She wasn't the problem; she was just there to film the whole display of arrogance—this blatant show of people acting like they’re somehow above the law.

brightpilot6 said:Catholics, scum, predators...

It seems like you and restlesssurfer97 are the only ones obsessed with this, bringing it up maybe twenty times in the last five pages alone. Honestly, I think they're just idiots—kind of like that guy we saw over at Evian. But I suppose you can't hold a decent debate without relying on a strawman, can you?

Most of the church establishment and the actual believers follow the rules and act appropriately. It's just that certain idiots don't. And those idiots need to be called out right now, especially given how things stand. Period.

If this one priest is truly the issue, then why hasn't the Church taken any decisive action against him?

Why not just transfer him to a different parish?

stormyharbor13 said:SK1, Tajikistan League live stream for all you sweethearts 🙏

Give me a break. I only follow the Nepal Serie B and the Uganda women's league.