It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are tattoos the next target for SJW?

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justso
Unless he was exhibiting unusual or aggressive behavior, this is a free country, right?


The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual. At this point, the individual became irate, repeatedly and aggressively using offensive language toward the lifeguard. As the situation began to escalate, a second lifeguard intervened, and the police were called.”

I found this.



+2 more 
posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71

What would happen if a Hindu man wanted to take a swim ? Swatzikas are much older than natzi Germany.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

So what? It isn't illegal to approach someone and talk to him. He wasn't arrested in the end.
edit on 15-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So what do you think the lifeguard wanted to talk to him about...like what kinda thing do you think he,came to say??? Only a few things spring to mind that make logical sense. Why do you insist on being obtuse about this?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Why does everyone assume he's a nazi because he has a swastika tattoo?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You really believe that lifeguard didn't ask him to cover them or leave? He just came over to say hi and have a friendly chat huh?


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
So someone was offended by the tattoo.

Then the lifeguard was offended by some language.

(I need a good cry and a puppy right now)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
If it was a privately owned pool, the owners/operators have a right to kick anyone out for wearing disgusting brown shoes, much less racist and satanic tattoos.

If it was a public pool and he paid to display his racist tattoos then, thats another kettle of fish.
edit on 15-8-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So what do you think the lifeguard wanted to talk to him about...like what kinda thing do you think he,came to say??? Only a few things spring to mind that make logical sense. Why do you insist on being obtuse about this?

I'm not being obtuse. I really want to know why you care what the lifeguard was saying to him. The point is that he became irate, the police were called, and he was ejected for his behavior and NOT his body art. I know you want to be offended so you can demean and denounce us leftists but this is fake news. No one was ejected for the tattoos on their body.
edit on 15-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Don't we all!



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He became belligerent after the lifeguard became aggressive with him. Did you read the op?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justso
Unless he was exhibiting unusual or aggressive behavior, this is a free country, right?


...and he became belligerent with a life guard, D.C. officials said.

What do you call that? Plain and ordinary behavior?

Here is the paragraph immediately before the sentence that you quoted....

The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual. At this point, the individual became irate, repeatedly and aggressively using offensive language toward the lifeguard. As the situation began to escalate, a second lifeguard intervened, and the police were called.”


He was belligerent (the officials description) after they asked him to leave.... simply because of his tattoos.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
If it was a privately owned pool, the owners/operators have a right to kick anyone out for wearing disgusting brown shoes, much less racist and satanic tattoos.

If it was a public pool and he paid to display his racist tattoos then, thats another kettle of fish.

The story in the OP describes it as a public pool.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He became belligerent after the lifeguard became aggressive with him. Did you read the op?

Clearly you didn't read the article because at no point does it mention the lifeguard becoming aggressive. It says he asked him some questions then called a secondary lifeguard over then called the police when that tattooed guy became belligerent.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justso
Unless he was exhibiting unusual or aggressive behavior, this is a free country, right?


...and he became belligerent with a life guard, D.C. officials said.

What do you call that? Plain and ordinary behavior?

Here is the paragraph immediately before the sentence that you quoted....

The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual. At this point, the individual became irate, repeatedly and aggressively using offensive language toward the lifeguard. As the situation began to escalate, a second lifeguard intervened, and the police were called.”


He was belligerent (the officials description) after they asked him to leave.... simply because of his tattoos.

I'm sorry. I'm not reading anywhere that its says they asked him to leave. Maybe your ability to read is different than mine, care to point it out?
edit on 15-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would be irate if I was told to leave the pool because the guests didnt like something about me either. Regardless of if it is something I like or dislike...its not ok to kick someone out over tattoos or maybe how they dress or maybe cause they smoke or whatever...see what I'm getting at here. I'm not saying after he became irate he wasn't a problem and didn't need to leave. I'm saying he should have never been approached over it in the first place or at least not hassled over it. He had every right to be there and show the world how disgusting of a person he is.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

I never said I agree or disagree with the actions taken. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy that the Right had no problem trying shut down pride parades by crying about how could they ever explain it to children. But throw a belligerent Nazi out of a pool and suddenly they're crying like it's a slanderous betrayal akin to 9/11. There's definitely a double standard and for whatever reason it's kinder to Nazis than homosexuals.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

Where did they ask him to leave? You said it yourself that you don't know what the lifeguard said to him and now you are jumping to conclusions to fuel the wild narrative of the OP's. Good job at buying into propaganda. I guess I was right about you fishing for an excuse to hate liberals.
edit on 15-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justso
Unless he was exhibiting unusual or aggressive behavior, this is a free country, right?


...and he became belligerent with a life guard, D.C. officials said.

What do you call that? Plain and ordinary behavior?

Here is the paragraph immediately before the sentence that you quoted....

The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual. At this point, the individual became irate, repeatedly and aggressively using offensive language toward the lifeguard. As the situation began to escalate, a second lifeguard intervened, and the police were called.”


He was belligerent (the officials description) after they asked him to leave.... simply because of his tattoos.

I'm sorry. I'm not reading anywhere that its says they asked him to leave. Maybe your ability to read is different than mine, care to point it out?

What need did they have to speak to him if another patron was offended by his tattoos???
Were they congratulating him???



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71

Those tattoos are beligerent. They are meant to entice a reaction from being seen. They are meant to signal to any one who sees them the message that the person is at least a Nazi sympathizer. Of course this fellows half naked display of those feared and hated symbols caused a reaction.

Had he had a tattoo of a couple doing it doggy style tattooed on his back wouldn't the people with children at the public pool have been within their rights to ask the guard to ask the guy to put on a tee shirt???



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join