THE BIG LIE: Brandon Straka on J6. Railroaded by his own government.

[JDHillFan]

1 hour ago, Roundybout said:

Surely even such a scholar like yourself can recognize when I’m being tongue in cheek, no? 

It’s not the first time you’ve said it (I won’t bother to pull up the others) and you commonly take extreme positions. That’s all on you. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, T master said:

 

A unarmed women shot and killed for little bit of nothing and the person that pulled the trigger is free something that is becoming more the norm now days than true justice .

 

And your a ass for saying that she is in hell, but one day you will answer for it as we all will ...

Everyone has their blindspots and hypocrisy, but when it comes to police involved shootings, the liberals are Hellen Keller.  

 

On the one hand, you have a Michael Brown, a guy intent on ending the life of an officer and demands for civil rights investigations.   You get all sorts pf platitudes---shoot 'em in the leg, etc. 

 

On the other, Ashleigh Babbit, an unarmed individual, officer shoots to kill and is cleared of any wrongdoing in what amounts to about  20 minutes.  

 

Crazy stuff. 

 

[Homelander]

This thread is pure brain rot. Brandon's broke, desperate, and rewriting history just to milk his drooling cult of mouth-breathing morons.

 

Go on, simps. Empty those wallets. Brandon needs your rent money.

 

Trump Fans Charged In Capitol Attack Didn't Like Antifa Getting Credit For Their Work | HuffPost Latest News

 

“It was not Antifa at the Capitol,” wrote Brandon Straka, a “Stop the Steal” organizer with ties to Trump who was charged last month. “It was freedom loving Patriots who were DESPERATE to fight for the final hope of our Republic because literally nobody cares about them. Everyone else can denounce them. I will not.”

 

 

 

 

"Straka sanctioned the seizure of a police officer’s shield while the officer attempted to keep out the crowd of rioters growing closer to the U.S. Capitol. Straka can be heard saying 'take it, take it.' Straka’s actions escalated the conduct of the rioters."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone’s lying... except us, of course.

 

 

🤣😅😅🤣🤣😅

[Homelander]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Everyone has their blindspots and hypocrisy, but when it comes to police involved shootings, the liberals are Hellen Keller.  

 

On the one hand, you have a Michael Brown, a guy intent on ending the life of an officer and demands for civil rights investigations.   You get all sorts pf platitudes---shoot 'em in the leg, etc. 

 

On the other, Ashleigh Babbit, an unarmed individual, officer shoots to kill and is cleared of any wrongdoing in what amounts to about  20 minutes.  

 

Crazy stuff. 

 

 

Comparing Michael Brown - whose death ignited a nationwide reckoning on police violence - to Ashli Babbitt, who was part of a violent mob trying to overturn an election, is some galaxy-brain false equivalence.

 

But the real kicker? You told us exactly who you are without actually saying it.

[dgrochester55]

36 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

Speaking of Catholics, though:

 

 

Uh huh 

 

The WWJD card? Really? Weak effort.

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Homelander said:

 

Comparing Michael Brown - whose death ignited a nationwide reckoning on police violence - to Ashli Babbitt, who was part of a violent mob trying to overturn an election, is some galaxy-brain false equivalence.

 

But the real kicker? You told us exactly who you are without actually saying it.

I'm not the DaVinci Code, BillSy, nor am I particularly complicated. 

 

Michael Brown was acting in a criminal manner, put himself in harms way, made some very bad decisions that lead up to his departure from this earth.  When he assaulted an officer, attempted to secure his weapon, then was attempting to return to assault him again, he was shot.  I don't know him, don't know his family, but the facts are pretty clear.  

 

Ashley Babbitt was acting in a criminal manner, put herself in harms way, made some very bad decisions that lead up to the departure from this earth.  When the officer was concerned for his life, perhaps concerned she would assault him, he made the decision to shoot her.  Those facts are pretty clear, too. 

 

The difference is in the treatment of each case from the perspective of liberal politicians and people like you.  In one case, the dispatch of a criminal has you turning on police, talking about legs shots, trashing the officer doing the hard, dirty work of law enforcement.  In the other, two quick thumbs up, a cursory investigation and not one word about unarmed individuals being shot.  

 

There's no kicker for me here, BillSy.  I already know who you are, and how you think, and how completely full of **** you typically are. 

[Homelander]

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'm not the DaVinci Code, BillSy, nor am I particularly complicated. 

 

Michael Brown was acting in a criminal manner, put himself in harms way, made some very bad decisions that lead up to his departure from this earth.  When he assaulted an officer, attempted to secure his weapon, then was attempting to return to assault him again, he was shot.  I don't know him, don't know his family, but the facts are pretty clear.  

 

Ashley Babbitt was acting in a criminal manner, put herself in harms way, made some very bad decisions that lead up to the departure from this earth.  When the officer was concerned for his life, perhaps concerned she would assault him, he made the decision to shoot her.  Those facts are pretty clear, too. 

 

The difference is in the treatment of each case from the perspective of liberal politicians and people like you.  In one case, the dispatch of a criminal has you turning on police, talking about legs shots, trashing the officer doing the hard, dirty work of law enforcement.  In the other, two quick thumbs up, a cursory investigation and not one word about unarmed individuals being shot.  

 

There's no kicker for me here, BillSy.  I already know who you are, and how you think, and how completely full of **** you typically are. 

 

Well, that's quite verbose just to say, "I only care about 'facts' when they support my bias."

 

You've applied identical reasoning to both Michael Brown and Ashli Babbitt cases, then expressed outrage at different public reactions as if context, history, and systemic power dynamics are irrelevant.

 

And isn't it interesting how you suddenly praise "hard, dirty work" when an officer's actions match your political views, but otherwise resort to outrage and protest? So much for consistency.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, Homelander said:

 

Well, that's quite verbose just to say, "I only care about 'facts' when they support my bias."

 

You've applied identical reasoning to both Michael Brown and Ashli Babbitt cases, then expressed outrage at different public reactions as if context, history, and systemic power dynamics are irrelevant.

 

And isn't it interesting how you suddenly praise "hard, dirty work" when an officer's actions match your political views, but otherwise resort to outrage and protest? So much for consistency.

 

I included context, history and power dynamic in my analysis.  Again, some things are complicated, this one is not complicated.  It's unnecessary to re-litigate American history in every situation that is discussed.  Someone, somewhere along the line mentioned "systemic power dynamics" and like a child drawn to a butterfly, you were captivated.    

 

As to the bolded sentence, I have no idea what you're rambling about there.  Do you?

[BillsFanNC]

59 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

It’s not the first time you’ve said it (I won’t bother to pull up the others) and you commonly take extreme positions. That’s all on you. 

 

Let's recap anyway. To Roundy it's perfectly ok to:

 

- Shoot and kill an unarmed Capitol trespasser.

 

- Shoot and kill ICE law enforcement officers when they're in the process of apprehending illegal alien criminals.

 

- Firebomb and/or vandalize Tesla dealerships and individual property.

 

- Riot outside the White House and in the process injure dozens of secret service agents.

 

But deporting an illegal alien wife beating gangster?  

 

😂

 

 

 

 

[Homelander]

12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I included context, history and power dynamic in my analysis.  Again, some things are complicated, this one is not complicated.  It's unnecessary to re-litigate American history in every situation that is discussed.  Someone, somewhere along the line mentioned "systemic power dynamics" and like a child drawn to a butterfly, you were captivated.    

 

As to the bolded sentence, I have no idea what you're rambling about there.  Do you?

 

 

You claim to have included context, history, and power dynamics, but all you really did was flatten two vastly different events into a cookie cutter take that ignores the bigger picture. Saying “this isn’t complicated” doesn’t magically erase the complexity you’re just choosing not to engage with it.

 

As for not following the bolded sentence I believe that’s what happens when nuance enters the chat and you’re still trying to debate with bumper sticker slogans.

 

[Homelander]

7 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Let's recap anyway. To Roundy it's perfectly ok to:

 

- Shoot and kill an unarmed Capitol trespasser.

 

- Shoot and kill ICE law enforcement officers when they're in the process of apprehending illegal alien criminals.

 

- Firebomb and/or vandalize Tesla dealerships and individual property.

 

- Riot outside the White House and in the process injure dozens of secret service agents.

 

But deporting an illegal alien wife beating gangster?  

 

😂

 

 

 

 

 

Classic throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy. 

 

It's quite obvious the cult is losing both in court and the court of public opinion as you're desperately trying to build a narrative from cherry picked outrage bait. 

 

When you’re calling a rioter in an attempted coup a capitol trespasser and tossing in wife-beating gangster, it’s pretty obvious you’re scrambling to hold onto a narrative that’s slipping away.

[Albwan]

You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander

 

You mad brah?

I wasn't even this butt hurt after the 4 Bills Super Bowl losses..

[Roundybout]

7 minutes ago, Albwan said:

You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander

 

You mad brah?

I wasn't even this butt hurt after the 4 Bills Super Bowl losses..

You don’t need to announce you’re muting someone, it makes you look like you can’t handle someone else’s opinion. 

48 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Let's recap anyway. To Roundy it's perfectly ok to:

 

- Shoot and kill an unarmed Capitol trespasser.

 

- Shoot and kill ICE law enforcement officers when they're in the process of apprehending illegal alien criminals.

 

- Firebomb and/or vandalize Tesla dealerships and individual property.

 

- Riot outside the White House and in the process injure dozens of secret service agents.

 

But deporting an illegal alien wife beating gangster?  

 

😂

 

 

 

 

Babbitt was told to stop and continued to climb through the window. 
 

FAFO. 

1 hour ago, dgrochester55 said:

 

The WWJD card? Really? Weak effort.

 

 

 

 

Hits too close to home? A pang of conscience perhaps?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

48 minutes ago, Homelander said:

 

 

You claim to have included context, history, and power dynamics, but all you really did was flatten two vastly different events into a cookie cutter take that ignores the bigger picture. Saying “this isn’t complicated” doesn’t magically erase the complexity you’re just choosing not to engage with it.

 

As for not following the bolded sentence I believe that’s what happens when nuance enters the chat and you’re still trying to debate with bumper sticker slogans.

 

You’re confusing “analysis” with “conclusion” which doesn’t really surprise me. 
 

With respect to “nuance” , as I assumed, you’re an empty suit.  
 

 

[dgrochester55]

2 hours ago, Roundybout said:

You don’t need to announce you’re muting someone, it makes you look like you can’t handle someone else’s opinion. 

Babbitt was told to stop and continued to climb through the window. 
 

FAFO. 

Hits too close to home? A pang of conscience perhaps?

 

Nope, just a weak effort, maybe someone lower in intelligence or highly suggestible might get someone out of that but the sharper 90% of people on both sides of the spectrum would only see crap like this as not credible.  It ignores that the deported "victims" criminals who never should have been here because they bypassed the rules, cherry picks from a religion while trolling it's followers and compares apples to oranges. Just another piece of useless propaganda with no other intent but to divide. Low brow and trashy in my opinion.

Edited Friday at 08:32 PM by dgrochester55

[Homelander]

1 hour ago, dgrochester55 said:

It ignores that the deported "victims" criminals who never should have been here because they bypassed the rules

 

 

[dgrochester55]

11 minutes ago, Homelander said:

 

 

I'll take an actual document from congress.gov over a meme with a quote(that was likely out of context and/or strategically edited.)

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-2/ALDE_00013725/

 

More specifically, this was decided in 2015 by a left leaning at the time supreme court

 

"U.S. citizens have also asserted that the exclusion of an alien has impinged upon their due process rights.9 In Kerry v. Din, five Justices in 2015 agreed that denying an immigrant visa to the husband of a U.S. citizen on the grounds that he was inadmissible under a provision of federal immigration law (pertaining to terrorist activities) did not violate the due process rights of the U.S. citizen spouse.10 These Justices differed in their reasoning, though. A three-Justice plurality held that the U.S. citizen spouse had no protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in her husband’s ability to come to the United States, and did not decide whether the government had established a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for excluding her husband.11 A two-Justice concurrence did not reach the question of whether the U.S. citizen wife had asserted a protected liberty interest, but instead concluded that the consular officials’ citation of a particular statutory ground for inadmissibility as the basis for denying the visa application satisfied due process under Mandel, which requires only that the government state a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the denial.12"

 

 

For the most part, 5th amendment rights are not seen as applying to undocumented.  There are individual cases where it has applied, but it is  not a default or an inheret right. It took a scroll down past about 20 leftist opinions column on Google, but I was able to find it.

Edited Friday at 10:32 PM by dgrochester55

[Homelander]

6 minutes ago, dgrochester55 said:

I'll take an actual document from congress.gov over a meme with a quote(that was likely out of context and/or strategically edited.)

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-2/ALDE_00013725/

 

More specifically, this was decided in 2015 by a left leaning at the time supreme court

 

"U.S. citizens have also asserted that the exclusion of an alien has impinged upon their due process rights.9 In Kerry v. Din, five Justices in 2015 agreed that denying an immigrant visa to the husband of a U.S. citizen on the grounds that he was inadmissible under a provision of federal immigration law (pertaining to terrorist activities) did not violate the due process rights of the U.S. citizen spouse.10 These Justices differed in their reasoning, though. A three-Justice plurality held that the U.S. citizen spouse had no protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in her husband’s ability to come to the United States, and did not decide whether the government had established a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for excluding her husband.11 A two-Justice concurrence did not reach the question of whether the U.S. citizen wife had asserted a protected liberty interest, but instead concluded that the consular officials’ citation of a particular statutory ground for inadmissibility as the basis for denying the visa application satisfied due process under Mandel, which requires only that the government state a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the denial.12"

 

 

For the most part, 5th amendment rights are not seen as applying to undocumented.  There are individual cases where it has applied, but it is  not a default or an inheret right. It took a scroll down past about 20 leftist opinions column on Google, but I was able to find it.

 

Cool story, but you might want to actually read the Constitution - “person” not “citizen” is the word used in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. That’s not a meme; it’s the law.

U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

Also, Kerry v. Din wasn’t about undocumented immigrants getting no due process it was about whether a US citizen had a constitutional right to bring their spouse into the country. Entirely different issue.

 

Last, in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), Scalia dissented from the majority on the specific ruling, he did not dispute that due process rights apply to non-citizens present in the United States. He acknowledged that once a person is on US soil, even unlawfully, they are entitled to certain constitutional protections.

[dgrochester55]

1 hour ago, Homelander said:

 

Cool story, but you might want to actually read the Constitution - “person” not “citizen” is the word used in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. That’s not a meme; it’s the law.

U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

Also, Kerry v. Din wasn’t about undocumented immigrants getting no due process it was about whether a US citizen had a constitutional right to bring their spouse into the country. Entirely different issue.

 

Last, in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), Scalia dissented from the majority on the specific ruling, he did not dispute that due process rights apply to non-citizens present in the United States. He acknowledged that once a person is on US soil, even unlawfully, they are entitled to certain constitutional protections.

 

 

"Read the constitution?"

 

Let me give you a parallel to that comeback. If a crazy Christian Nationalist gave you a "hot take" arguing for Project 2025 and then said "read your Bible" as their counter, you would laugh because they have an interpretation of the Bible that is way off and not grounded in reality.?" Even if you read it, your view towards project 2025 would not change.

 

Same applies in this scenario. If I "read the constitution", my opinion will stay the same. Parts of the constitution are interpreted differently, even by lawyers and judges.  When it comes to the subject, you have an inaccurate interpretation of the constitution that is different from the majority. I see it differently, so does the Supreme court. End of story

 

Sorry dems, but you cannot keep your thug. You will need to find a US citizen to be your next virtue signaling status symbol.

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:43 PM by dgrochester55

[Homelander]

3 hours ago, dgrochester55 said:

 

"Read the constitution?"

 

Let me give you a parallel to that comeback. If a crazy Christian Nationalist gave you a "hot take" arguing for Project 2025 and then said "read your Bible" as their counter, you would laugh because they have an interpretation of the Bible that is way off and not grounded in reality.?" Even if you read it, your view towards project 2025 would not change.

 

Same applies in this scenario. If I "read the constitution", my opinion will stay the same. Parts of the constitution are interpreted differently, even by lawyers and judges.  When it comes to the subject, you have an inaccurate interpretation of the constitution that is different from the majority. I see it differently, so does the Supreme court. End of story

 

Sorry dems, but you cannot keep your thug. You will need to find a US citizen to be your next virtue signaling status symbol.

 

 

 

Nice deflection. You’re the one misquoting the Constitution and court cases.

 

Yeah, the Constitution and Bible are open to interpretation, but let’s be real: some interpretations are just better at twisting things to fit an agenda.

 

The Constitution is clear on this issue, and it's backed up by justices on both sides of the aisle. But hey, keep trying to make your case.