[US] Attorney[s] Feeley and Goldstein unconstitutionally and unlawfully submitted a COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION to Judge Williams to which she signed a TRO prohibiting our G2church Sacraments from being supplied to those who want and need it for a donation. To keep the peace, we at the G2church voluntarily and under duress have stopped the sending of our G2sacraments since April 17th to pray and ask the Lord how we should respond. This action in no way is evidence that we are submitting to this order. We completely reject this TRO on the grounds that it is violating out 1st Amendment Rights to freely exercise our religious beliefs.
I'm admittedly not a law person, but these two things seem contradictory to me. Isn't doing something under duress quite literally the opposite of voluntary? I mean this whole argument is bullshit but that stood out to me as particularly stupid.
Sorry if somewhere way downthread somebody also mentioned this but do you notice the slight, tiny, almost imperceptible flaw in the logic of these two sentences, which contradict each other? And then the second sentence contradicts itself again, immediately? Take a good look
We have to obey God rather than men. We will NOT be participating in any of your UNCONSTITUTIONAL Orders, Summons etc. due to your willful denial of the 1st Amendment and God's Word!
If you noticed that the Constitution and the beloved 1st Amendment of which it became a part, are works of men, then hooray for you!
I swear. I'm about ready to revive the church of Asherah, where we offer wine and raisin cakes to a nice matronly lady in exchange for rain and fertility, grow trees, and do not seek to poison anyone with chemicals.
Not trying to poison anyone feels like a pretty low bar for a religion and yet these grifters found a way to limbo under it.
II Muria. 'I say unto thee, nay! Consume ye the bleach!'
Flying is easy. Landing, on the other hand...
First: Attend a cool Coronavirus Partay.
Second: Get baked.
Not even a building. A PMB will do.
[US] Attorney[s] Feeley and Goldstein unconstitutionally and unlawfully submitted a COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION to Judge Williams to which she signed a TRO prohibiting our G2church Sacraments from being supplied to those who want and need it for a donation. To keep the peace, we at the G2church voluntarily and under duress have stopped the sending of our G2sacraments since April 17th to pray and ask the Lord how we should respond. This action in no way is evidence that we are submitting to this order. We completely reject this TRO on the grounds that it is violating out 1st Amendment Rights to freely exercise our religious beliefs.
I'm admittedly not a law person, but these two things seem contradictory to me. Isn't doing something under duress quite literally the opposite of voluntary? I mean this whole argument is bullshit but that stood out to me as particularly stupid.
Imagine how silly I feel for voting Alf Landon in '36.
Sorry if somewhere way downthread somebody also mentioned this but do you notice the slight, tiny, almost imperceptible flaw in the logic of these two sentences, which contradict each other? And then the second sentence contradicts itself again, immediately? Take a good look
We have to obey God rather than men. We will NOT be participating in any of your UNCONSTITUTIONAL Orders, Summons etc. due to your willful denial of the 1st Amendment and God's Word!
If you noticed that the Constitution and the beloved 1st Amendment of which it became a part, are works of men, then hooray for you!
Children and vulnerable disabled people don't deserve to be poisoned. For that matter credulous adults don't deserve to be poisoned.
Me and my little spray bottle of isopropyl alcohol and some cut up paper towels have solved that problem.
I think they meant "grudgingly."
It all reads like it was written by a not-very-sharp third grader who has seen Judge Pirro a couple of times.
The original candidate's wife, IIRC, was Seven of Nine, and he was sex clubbing. There's stupid, and then there's barking mad.
Where in the bible does it say to drink bleach?
I swear. I'm about ready to revive the church of Asherah, where we offer wine and raisin cakes to a nice matronly lady in exchange for rain and fertility, grow trees, and do not seek to poison anyone with chemicals.
Not trying to poison anyone feels like a pretty low bar for a religion and yet these grifters found a way to limbo under it.
See the most interesting "domino theory" comment below. At least, it would be there if Wonkette allowed comments.
Or there is some bullshit being flung.
Hah! Punctuation pedantry is the best pedantry.