Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Maik Jeaunz

Recommended Posts

It should never be a political issue. Regarding white supremacists, BLM, Antifa, etc. As it should be about these groups being under the FBI watch. As they promote hate and violence. BLM and Antifa destroyed cities and looting. White supremacists and in the Proud Boys approached the Capital and trashed it. Really do not politicize it. It is about right from wrong. Protest peacefully yes. Loot, riot, destroy not at all!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do some of you think a congressional investigation has anything to do with looking into Buffalo hat guy or those on the ground?

The FBI and other authorities are doing that (just as they are investigating and arresting and prosecuting those from the summer riots).

Its to look into the why of it...why was the government not prepared.  There is nothing like that to really look into for the summer riots.  

The opposition from the GOP appears to be nothing more than they still tie themselves to Trump, and anything his administration did poorly that day would reflect poorly upon them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, The General said:

Link

This was the proposal. Had bipartisan support.

What would be the scope of summer protest investigation? Is there an incident that is in question? Has any work been done in Congress to put something down on paper to vote on?

This is probably the best question of this thread.  I'm still reading through, but I'm willing to bet it goes unanswered after it being asked a few times.  I'll check back when I get to the end of the thread.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 8:31 AM, jon_mx said:

Yes.  The level of security for a crowd that size needs to be 100 times larger.  It like needing a container to hold a gallon of milk and returning with a teaspoon.  Calling that 'insufficient' is laughable.  They were completely unprepared for any size crowd.

Were you there on the 6th?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yenrub said:
On 5/21/2021 at 5:31 AM, jon_mx said:

Yes.  The level of security for a crowd that size needs to be 100 times larger.  It like needing a container to hold a gallon of milk and returning with a teaspoon.  Calling that 'insufficient' is laughable.  They were completely unprepared for any size crowd.

Were you there on the 6th?

It would be useful to understand why they were so unprepared, no? 

Like with an investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The General said:

It would be useful to understand why they were so unprepared, no? 

Like with an investigation.

Or Congressional hearings where they interviewed all the heads and they testified back on May 10th.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The General said:

It would be useful to understand why they were so unprepared, no? 

Like with an investigation.

I think I'd settle for another hearing where they actually have to answer the questions in a meaningful way.  That might be asking a bit much in today's political landscape, but it's pretty clear what people say when they know a TV camera is pointed at them is usually different than if there are no TV cameras.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Or Congressional hearings where they interviewed all the heads and they testified back on May 10th.  

Did this answer your questions as to why they were unprepared?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what I believe is a first, the DoJ has moved to voluntarily dismiss one of the proceedings against a capitol rioter (alleged) - Christopher Kelly.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.226311/gov.uscourts.dcd.226311.14.0.pdf

 

Quote

The government and defense counsel have discussed the merits of the case, and upon reflection of the facts currently known to the government, the government believes that dismissal without prejudice at this time serves the interests of justice.

 

According to a report on Politico, he was arrested after posting pictures outside the capitol, including several inflammatory comments and one that read, “We’re in,” but it has since been determined he did not actually enter the building.

This is the affidavit filed in support of the (now dropped)  charges: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.226311/gov.uscourts.dcd.226311.1.1_1.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

According to a report on Politico, he was arrested after posting pictures outside the capitol, including several inflammatory comments and one that read, “We’re in,” but it has since been determined he did not actually enter the building.

So he's a poseur

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What was trump talking about in’s this quote in his call with the Georgia sec of state?

 

Trump: No, we do have a way, but I don’t want to get into it. We found a way . . . excuse me, but we don’t need it because we’re only down 11,000 votes, so we don’t even need it. I personally think they’re corrupt as hell. But we don’t need that. All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don’t need that. I’m not looking to shake up the whole world. 

Link to transcript...worth taking another look at it imo

(Cleta Mitchell was also on the call)

Edited by Snorkelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

What was trump talking about in’s this quote in his call with the Georgia sec of state?

 

Trump: No, we do have a way, but I don’t want to get into it. We found a way . . . excuse me, but we don’t need it because we’re only down 11,000 votes, so we don’t even need it. I personally think they’re corrupt as hell. But we don’t need that. All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don’t need that. I’m not looking to shake up the whole world. 

Link to transcript...worth taking another look at it imo

(Cleta Mitchell was also on the call)

Probably some cockamamie idea that someone in his orbit put in his ear.  Thankfully, he never made good on any of those ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

Marxists could be fighting for power and control AND equality.

That's a negative.  We've seen the results of Socialist/Marxist/Communist "equality".  The entirety of the 20th century has shown us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2021 at 5:48 PM, The Commish said:
On 5/31/2021 at 3:57 PM, BladeRunner said:
On 5/31/2021 at 3:51 PM, The Commish said:

For the "its all the same" guys, i have a question because im trying to understand where you draw your lines on this stuff. 

Would it be "the same" if a group of 500 random armed dudes going to DC to overthrow the President as if 500 of our best special forces from our navy, army, and marines going to DC to overthrow the President?  Or is there a meaningful distinction there?

The goal is the same, is it not?  I don't see how that would be much more different other than from a symbolic perspective.

Ultimately both are a threat and need to be dealt with.

I'm asking if you view them the same.  If it's not the same, what parts are different to you.  

Anything on this BR or are we good that these would be viewed the same way thus treated the same way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The General said:

Did this answer your questions as to why they were unprepared?

when you take it as fact(which it is) that government can't stop robo calls you get closer to the answer.

inept, & unanswerable.  the second word is the most important.  Cuomo & the list goes on is a perfect example.

we are screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Anything on this BR or are we good that these would be viewed the same way thus treated the same way?

I would view the military members having a slight more seriousness.  I mean, 500 people storming the capitol regardless of background is not good.

So, kinda not the same but not that much different.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, shadrap said:

when you take it as fact(which it is) that government can't stop robo calls you get closer to the answer.

inept, & unanswerable.  the second word is the most important.  Cuomo & the list goes on is a perfect example.

we are screwed.

There was some questioning in May that Jon referred to I had missed. I don’t think this answered why the Capitol Police were so unprepared though.

There were some allegations this was by design but it seemed a little tinhatty to me but would like to have some people answer this under oath, get it answers out there.

The whole thing should be investigated better than it has been with more accountability. What they had passed but got blocked by Mitch seemed the best way to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snorkelson said:

What was trump talking about in’s this quote in his call with the Georgia sec of state?

 

Trump: No, we do have a way, but I don’t want to get into it. We found a way . . . excuse me, but we don’t need it because we’re only down 11,000 votes, so we don’t even need it. I personally think they’re corrupt as hell. But we don’t need that. All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don’t need that. I’m not looking to shake up the whole world. 

Link to transcript...worth taking another look at it imo

(Cleta Mitchell was also on the call)

He’s openly talking about stealing the Georgia election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

I would view the military members having a slight more seriousness.  I mean, 500 people storming the capitol regardless of background is not good.

So, kinda not the same but not that much different.

 

Thanks...so likelihood of success isn't part of your equation then either?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, The Commish said:

Anything on this BR or are we good that these would be viewed the same way thus treated the same way?

Quote

 

For the "its all the same" guys, i have a question because im trying to understand where you draw your lines on this stuff. 

Would it be "the same" if a group of 500 random armed dudes going to DC to overthrow the President as if 500 of our best special forces from our navy, army, and marines going to DC to overthrow the President?  Or is there a meaningful distinction there?

 

1.  They were not armed.  There is not one charge of a single person of a gun inside the Capitol.  The only shots fired were by the police at unarmed civilians. 

2.  They were not trying to overthrow anyone.  At worst they could have disrupted or attempt to influence a rubber-stamp proceeding.  

I know you don't watch the media, but yet repeat their lies and false allegations.  It is all crap.  Give it up and be honest.

 

ETA:  At least on the positive side you did not resort to the triple whammy and say how 'deadly the attack' was.

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

1.  They were not armed.  There is not one charge of a single person of a gun inside the Capitol.  The only shots fired were by the police at unarmed civilians. 

2.  They were not trying to overthrow anyone.  At worst they could have disrupted or attempt to influence a rubber-stamp proceeding.  

I know you don't watch the media, but yet repeat their lies and false allegations.  It is all crap.  Give it up and be honest.

 

ETA:  At least on the positive side you did not resort to the triple whammy and say how 'deadly the attack' was.

You can fish elsewhere.  I presented a hypothetical to try and understand where people are drawing the line.  I made no mention of anything you said here.  I alleged nothing and would love you to point out the "lie" in this hypothetical....that should be a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Commish said:

You can fish elsewhere.  I presented a hypothetical to try and understand where people are drawing the line.  I made no mention of anything you said here.  I alleged nothing and would love you to point out the "lie" in this hypothetical....that should be a good one.

Your hypothetical is loaded with a bunch of presumptions starting out with 'would it be the same'....the answer is, no it is not even remotely close to the same since how you framed it was based on lies.  Who is the one fishing here?  I would suggest you since you are claiming there is something even remotely identical with 500 armed people storming the white house to overthrow the government.  Take your BS narrative elsewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Your hypothetical is loaded with a bunch of presumptions starting out with 'would it be the same'....the answer is, no it is not even remotely close to the same since how you framed it was based on lies.  Who is the one fishing here?  I would suggest you since you are claiming there is something even remotely identical with 500 armed people storming the white house to overthrow the government.  Take your BS narrative elsewhere.

Again, I asked a question.  I didn't say they were the same or even that they were similar in my view.  I didn't even HINT at it.  I asked others if they saw them the same.  I ask this question because there have been actual assertions in this thread that the individuals involved don't matter all that much meaning if a President is doing it, it's generally the same thing as Joe Blow off the street doing it.  I find it hard to believe that people actually think that, but it appears they do.

So your perception may be that it's "loaded with a bunch of presumptions", but that's on you.  If you want to read into it, I can't control that.  Same as it ever was with you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Again, I asked a question.  I didn't say they were the same or even that they were similar in my view.  I didn't even HINT at it.  I asked others if they saw them the same.  I ask this question because there have been actual assertions in this thread that the individuals involved don't matter all that much meaning if a President is doing it, it's generally the same thing as Joe Blow off the street doing it.  I find it hard to believe that people actually think that, but it appears they do.

So your perception may be that it's "loaded with a bunch of presumptions", but that's on you.  If you want to read into it, I can't control that.  Same as it ever was with you.

The whole premise of that type of question presumes similarities.  So pretending like it is just a question is very disingenuous.  Sorry, but that is on you.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

What was trump talking about in’s this quote in his call with the Georgia sec of state?

 

Trump: No, we do have a way, but I don’t want to get into it. We found a way . . . excuse me, but we don’t need it because we’re only down 11,000 votes, so we don’t even need it. I personally think they’re corrupt as hell. But we don’t need that. All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don’t need that. I’m not looking to shake up the whole world. 

Link to transcript...worth taking another look at it imo

(Cleta Mitchell was also on the call)

Thanks for sharing. That’s an incredible transcript. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The whole premise of that type of question presumes similarities.  So pretending like it is just a question is very disingenuous.  Sorry, but that is on you.  

It doesn't...but now I have a better understanding of why you struggle so much with people here.  BR had no problem answering the question and didn't lump all the garbage on my question that you did.  Weird how that works.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, The Commish said:

It doesn't...but now I have a better understanding of why you struggle so much with people here.  BR had no problem answering the question and didn't lump all the garbage on my question that you did.  Weird how that works.

LOL...love the "it's not me, but you" shtick.  A large parentage of the population struggles with the braindead leftwing divisive rhetoric which dominates this subforum.   And the the obliviousness to it and the denial just makes it so much better.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

LOL...love the "it's not me, but you" shtick.  A large parentage of the population struggles with the braindead leftwing divisive rhetoric which dominates this subforum.   And the the obliviousness to it and the denial just makes it so much better.  

Yeah we know, we see it all the time from you, but that's not what I'm doing here.  Maybe that's what you want it to be.....I have no problem admitting when I don't communicate things correctly and I always try to be clear especially if a bunch of different people take it the same way and it's not the way I intended.  That's a sign to me that I didn't say things correctly.  Of course, when I have a situation where I am interacting with multiple people on a comment and I have a problem with one of those people and none of the others, it seems pretty safe to assume it's not me.  Throw on top of that KNOWING that the person I am having a problem with constantly and consistently doesn't really care what I'm saying and is only here to push an agenda they've created, it makes me do even less self reflection.  I'm flawed that way.

Anyway....feel free to project away, I've wasted enough of my time on this garbage.  

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

1.  They were not armed.  There is not one charge of a single person of a gun inside the Capitol.  The only shots fired were by the police at unarmed civilians. 

2.  They were not trying to overthrow anyone.  At worst they could have disrupted or attempt to influence a rubber-stamp proceeding.  

I know you don't watch the media, but yet repeat their lies and false allegations.  It is all crap.  Give it up and be honest.

 

ETA:  At least on the positive side you did not resort to the triple whammy and say how 'deadly the attack' was.

1. "armed" encompasses more than guns.  Pepper spray counts.  Flag poles count.  Fire extinguishers count.  The fact they weren't armed is really a testament to how successful Washington's Gun Free zone worked - none of these jackasses wanted to risk getting busted to/from the event.

2. you say rubber stamp proceeding, I say constitutionally mandated duty.  It seems some people don't respect the US Constitution and I'm not OK with that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transfer of power from one president to the next has occurred peacefully 44 consecutive times, going back to March 4, 1797.  This is something we have used as a testament to how great the USA is - we don't fight in the street when our guy loses, we regroup and work towards the next election.  This is how democracies are supposed to work.

That streak was broken January 6, 2021.

We had a good run, I guess.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

They were not trying to overthrow anyone.  At worst they could have disrupted or attempt to influence a rubber-stamp proceeding.  

I agree with this, but if you are talking intent, you do understand this was not the understanding they were given by Trump in his speech about this proceeding. They were told Pence had the right to set aside electoral college, in fact had been begged by Trump to do this, and was a traitor for going through with what every sane person knew to be a rubber stamp role. They, OTOH, were told they needed to fight like hell to stop this from happening.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Transfer of power from one president to the next has occurred peacefully 44 consecutive times, going back to March 4, 1797.  This is something we have used as a testament to how great the USA is - we don't fight in the street when our guy loses, we regroup and work towards the next election.  This is how democracies are supposed to work.

That streak was broken January 6, 2021.

We had a good run, I guess.

Not to nitpick, but I'm not sure I'd count Lincoln, Kennedy, et.al. as peaceful transitions...

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BigJim® said:

I agree with this, but if you are talking intent, you do understand this was not the understanding they were given by Trump in his speech about this proceeding. They were told Pence had the right to set aside electoral college, in fact had been begged by Trump to do this, and was a traitor for going through with what every sane person knew to be a rubber stamp role. They, OTOH, were told they needed to fight like hell to stop this from happening.

to me, this is why Jan 6 is inherently different than last summers race riots.  The aim was clear: to stop Congress from certifying the result of the election; to override the results sent by the 50 states.  I have been clear and consistent that this is why it's different. 

It's not about looting or burning federal property that made it an attempted insurrection, it was a clear an unambiguous assault on our Constitution.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rich Conway said:

Not to nitpick, but I'm not sure I'd count Lincoln, Kennedy, et.al. as peaceful transitions...

no one rioted in the street when LBJ was sworn in.  Andrew Johnson - not sure.  You might have a good nit to pick there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there appears to be a huge disagreement in this thread between what @jon_mx says happened on January 6 and what others say happened, and that disagreement is being mirrored all throughout the country. 
If only we could find a way to get to the bottom of it- for example a public investigation with hearings open to all, in which people were forced to give testimony under oath on pain of perjury- surely that would answer all of these disputes once and for all. Yet, one side is eager for this to happen, while the other side is strenuously opposed. What does that tell us? 

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jon_mx said:

They were not trying to overthrow anyone.  At worst they could have disrupted or attempt to influence a rubber-stamp proceeding.  

The "rubber-stamp" proceeding is Constitutionally required as well as the EC ballots that were in wooden boxes inside the Senate chamber. Realizing this was the intent of the rioters, what would have happened if Pence was unable to fulfill the requirement? And what would have been the remedy if the EC ballots were stolen or destroyed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You know, there appears to be a huge disagreement in this thread between what @jon_mx says happened on January 6 and what others say happened, and that disagreement is being mirrored all throughout the country. 
If only we could find a way to get to the bottom of it- for example a public investigation with hearings open to all, in which people were forced to give testimony under oath on pain of perjury- surely that would answer all of these disputes once and for all. Yet, one side is eager for this to happen, while the other side is strenuously opposed. What does that tell us? 

It tells me that your thesis is off. There is no path to changing of minds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You know, there appears to be a huge disagreement in this thread between what @jon_mx says happened on January 6 and what others say happened, and that disagreement is being mirrored all throughout the country. 
If only we could find a way to get to the bottom of it- for example a public investigation with hearings open to all, in which people were forced to give testimony under oath on pain of perjury- surely that would answer all of these disputes once and for all. Yet, one side is eager for this to happen, while the other side is strenuously opposed. What does that tell us? 

There is no proof of any weapons used by the peaceful protesters.  Perhaps start there instead of repeating the lies of a violent protest?

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A DC judge accepted a guilty plea from Paul Hodgkins earlier today (indictment).  Guilty of Felony Obstruction of Congress.  He was seen in pictures on the Senate floor with the buffalo horn guy, with a large Trump flag wearing a Trump t-shirt.  Could be a year or so in federal prison.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gilroy34 said:

There is no proof of any weapons used by the peaceful protesters.  Perhaps start there instead of repeating the lies of a violent protest?

That question, and many others, appears to be in some dispute. How about a public hearing so that we can get to the bottom of it? I’d sure like to hear from the Capitol Police on this matter, wouldn’t you? If it was as peaceful as you claim they will testify to that under oath, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gilroy34 said:

There is no proof of any weapons used by the peaceful protesters.  Perhaps start there instead of repeating the lies of a violent protest?

violence encompasses more than guns. 

Don't try to tell me it wasn't a violent protest.  I saw it happening live on TV.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jon_mx said:

1.  They were not armed.  There is not one charge of a single person of a gun inside the Capitol.  The only shots fired were by the police at unarmed civilians. 

2.  They were not trying to overthrow anyone.  At worst they could have disrupted or attempt to influence a rubber-stamp proceeding.  

I know you don't watch the media, but yet repeat their lies and false allegations.  It is all crap.  Give it up and be honest.

 

ETA:  At least on the positive side you did not resort to the triple whammy and say how 'deadly the attack' was.

1. They were armed with various objects and there are pictures of people with guns that were in the crowd.

2. This seriously downplays what they were trying to do. The president told them they need to “fight like hell” to stop Congress’ constitutional duty.

You can blame the media all you want, but we watched this unfold with our own eyes, live. We listened to the rhetoric at the rally beforehand. We watched the crowd leave the rally at Trump’s direction and March on the Capitol to assault our democracy. This thread was started well before Jan 6, and many suspected something like this might be attempted. It would be nice to know why the police were so unprepared and why other agencies didn’t react faster. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, timschochet said:

You know, there appears to be a huge disagreement in this thread between what @jon_mx says happened on January 6 and what others say happened, and that disagreement is being mirrored all throughout the country. 
If only we could find a way to get to the bottom of it- for example a public investigation with hearings open to all, in which people were forced to give testimony under oath on pain of perjury- surely that would answer all of these disputes once and for all. Yet, one side is eager for this to happen, while the other side is strenuously opposed. What does that tell us? 

Lol...yeah. let Nancy Pelosi be the judge and jury.  We already know what the findings will be.  Those evil white nationals are scary and the root of all evil.  Here are 10 things we must do to stop those people.  The country don't need the political circus under the guise of being some unbiased arbitrator of the truth.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Lol...yeah. let Nancy Pelosi be the judge and jury.  We already know what the findings will be.  Those evil white nationals are scary and the root of all evil.  Here are 10 things we must do to stop those people.  The country don't need the political circus under the guise of being some unbiased arbitrator of the truth.  

Republicans had their chance for a bipartisan commission. They didn't want it. :shrug:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dickies said:

1. They were armed with various objects and there are pictures of people with guns that were in the crowd.

2. This seriously downplays what they were trying to do. The president told them they need to “fight like hell” to stop Congress’ constitutional duty.

You can blame the media all you want, but we watched this unfold with our own eyes, live. We listened to the rhetoric at the rally beforehand. We watched the crowd leave the rally at Trump’s direction and March on the Capitol to assault our democracy. This thread was started well before Jan 6, and many suspected something like this might be attempted. It would be nice to know why the police were so unprepared and why other agencies didn’t react faster. 

Sorry, but that is crap.  Objects do not constitue arms.  One dude with a flag pole does not mean they were armed.  I know of no objects inside the Capitol building which were used to harm anyone.  I know the narrative is hard to let go, but it is extremely misleading at best.  If police shot a black man for carrying a flag saying he was 'armed',  the BS meters would go off.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Republicans had their chance for a bipartisan commission. They didn't want it. :shrug:

We already had hearings on the subject.  There is no real mystery to what went on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Sorry, but that is crap.  Objects do not constitue arms.  One dude with a flag pole does not mean they were armed.  I know of no objects inside the Capitol building which were used to harm anyone.  I know the narrative is hard to let go, but it is extremely misleading at best.  If police shot a black man for carrying a flag saying he was 'armed',  the BS meters would go off.  

Normally I would not consider a person with a flagpole armed, but when they start using it to beat police officers I would.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...