Search Results: enjoy it

Ever since this viral sketch of Batman choking out an ICE agent has been circling around, leftists online who don't even read comics have been trying to claim Batman has one of their own

Of course this is just a reimagined sketch but leftists will conveniently ignore this other sketch of Batman manhandling some ANTIFA soyboys

Ironically both sketches were posted by the same writer Chuck Dixon yet leftists wanna lecture an actual comic book writer that Batman is also a leftist

The thing is Batman isn't a leftist and was never a leftist to begin with despite what leftists love to claim just to make themselves feel more powerful and morally superior

For starters Batman is a straight white male born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he becomes a tall handsome ladies man Chad full of testosterone and his toxic masculinity is only eclipsed by Wolverine, Punisher and the Hulk

he's also a pro-capitalist billionaire who strongly supports police and law enforcement, he drives fast cars, flies in private jets, enjoys physical training and combat, dates and sleeps around with lots of women etc. something that leftists can't even do

if Batman were real he'd just be a beefed up version of Andrew Tate without the online trolling and constant need for attention and showing off

Yes Batman is a vigilante much like ANTIFA soyboys except Batman didn't become a vigilante to fight against law enforcement. He became a vigilante because law enforcement wasn't doing a good enough job at reducing crime in Gotham City

In fact Batman has been accused of being a fascist who goes around picking on the poor, the marginalized and the mentally ill e. g. the Joker

however the moment the Joker was labeled an incel, leftists suddenly had no problem with Batman picking on the Joker which kinda shows where their priorities truly lie

"The suicide bomber made his away across Bagram air base in Afghanistan in 2016, heading toward a Veterans Day 5-K race featuring hundreds of U. S. soldiers. As U. S. Army Spec. Winston T. Hencely moved to grab the man, the bomber detonated an explosive-laden vest that left Hencely with severe injuries and killed six.

Hencely was credited with saving lives, and the military later concluded that a contractor, Fluor Corp., which employed the suicide bomber, had failed to properly supervise the man before the attack.

Under federal law, Hencely cannot sue the military for his injuries. And when he sued Fluor for negligence, courts dismissed his case, saying federal law preempted it as well.

On Monday, the Supreme Court grappled with Hencely’s last-ditch appeal to revive his lawsuit. The case will determine what recourse soldiers hurt in combat zones might have if they allege that contractors — a fast-growing part of military operations — are responsible for their injuries.

The case revolves around the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which in some instances waives the sovereign immunity the government typically enjoys against lawsuits. The law sets up some clear barriers to suits, including those related to “combatant activities” during “time of war.”

In 1988 SCOTUS held that the tort law barred suits against military contractors when the claims involve a “uniquely federal interest.”.

Mark Mosier, an attorney for Fluor, told the justices the readiness of the U. S. military to fight a war could be undermined by suits like Hencely’s because trust between the military and contractors is paramount.

“The purpose of tort law is to discourage risk-taking, but waging war often requires contractors to take risks, putting their lives and the lives of others in danger,” Mosier said. “Petitioner’s claims also weaken the military’s control over combat operations. Contractors are part of the total force, and the military cannot successfully wage war without them.”