Charlie Kirk shot and killed at Utah rally.

ZenMode said:
I think non-citizens are here because we allow them to be, not because they have an inherent right to be here and we, as a country, have the absolute authority to decide to remove a non-citizen.
Click to expand...
End of the day immigration should be easy…You come in the legal way and apply for citizenship or you come in illegally and get deported…

Now keep in mind it’s always other circumstances that happen like a baseball players from Cuba or others trying to escape governments that they don’t agree with…You still do it the right way…It’s so simple but yet we make it so hard…
 
Tar1978Heel said:
So basically Charlie Kirk was shot for believing in the Constitution…

A non citizen can say what they want but not a US citizen he is considered a Nazi and is killed for the world to see…


These freedoms have limitations; for example, they don't protect speech that incites violence or causes a clear and present danger, or speech that defames someone.
Click to expand...
Some crazy person killed Kirk. I’m not seeing the connection. Murder is not legal.
 
Tar1978Heel said:
So basically Charlie Kirk was shot for believing in the Constitution…

A non citizen can say what they want but not a US citizen he is considered a Nazi and is killed for the world to see…


These freedoms have limitations; for example, they don't protect speech that incites violence or causes a clear and present danger, or speech that defames someone.
Click to expand...
Nobody is defending the killing of Kirk.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue - at least not in the constitutional sense. Freedom of speech protects you from the government taking actions against you or taking steps to silence your speech. The government did not kill Kirk.

This is about Kirk's right to life, nobody here is questioning that, and the government will take all steps to make sure the party involved is held accountable.
 
ZenMode said:
There's a reason that people take small quotes from larger, complete thoughts as the author of your post did. That reason is to misrepresent the intent of the person being partial quoted.

I'm not going to spend time going through every cherry picked quote, but here's a few thoughts:

MLK was not a good person. Did he single handedly lead the civil rights revolution? Yes, but he was not a good person.

He didn't say all black women don't have processing power..or whatever he said. He was talking about 4 specific females, at least two of which acknowledged they got where they did due to affirmative action. He's not responsible for the reality of what AA became, which is often a lowering of standards.

The black pilot comment was related to DEI. Again, it's not his fault that DEI exists in the form it does.

I think there is evidence that LGBTQ is a social contagion. I think it has become trendy and "in" to have 8 different genders.

As far as religious stuff goes, that is far from unique to Charlie and is widely accepted in the evangelical world. My in-laws are the nicest people and he is clearly in charge of the house, she is definitely submissive and it is 100% due to their Methodist beliefs.

Religious extremism is it's own type of crazy.

I don't agree with it, but there's nothing wrong with adults who choose to live their life as they do.

Edit: Charlie said some not great things, but there is a clear intent to remove all context and cherry pick parts of entire thought to misrepresent what he was saying.
Click to expand...
several of us on this board are members of the lgbtq community. people's sexuality isn't a fucking "social contagion" you fucking bigot.
ZenMode said:
There's a reason that people take small quotes from larger, complete thoughts as the author of your post did. That reason is to misrepresent the intent of the person being partial quoted.

I'm not going to spend time going through every cherry picked quote, but here's a few thoughts:

MLK was not a good person. Did he single handedly lead the civil rights revolution? Yes, but he was not a good person.

He didn't say all black women don't have processing power..or whatever he said. He was talking about 4 specific females, at least two of which acknowledged they got where they did due to affirmative action. He's not responsible for the reality of what AA became, which is often a lowering of standards.

The black pilot comment was related to DEI. Again, it's not his fault that DEI exists in the form it does.

I think there is evidence that LGBTQ is a social contagion. I think it has become trendy and "in" to have 8 different genders.

As far as religious stuff goes, that is far from unique to Charlie and is widely accepted in the evangelical world. My in-laws are the nicest people and he is clearly in charge of the house, she is definitely submissive and it is 100% due to their Methodist beliefs.

Religious extremism is it's own type of crazy.

I don't agree with it, but there's nothing wrong with adults who choose to live their life as they do.

Edit: Charlie said some not great things, but there is a clear intent to remove all context and cherry pick parts of entire thought to misrepresent what he was saying.
Click to expand...
so much bullshit and so many excuses, so little time.

calling people's sexuality and/or innate identity a "social contagion" is so fucking reprehensible.
 
ZenMode said:
Yah....nobody is saying they can't say it. Freedom to say something isn't the same as freedom from consequences, especially when the speaker doesn't have the right to be somewhere.

Go cheer the death of people in YOUR country, where you're a citizen and have a right to be.
Click to expand...
Actually, freedom to say something in freedom of consequences when the government is concerned.

You can't be deported for no other reason than exercising your constitutional right to free speech.

You may get fired. Your wife may leave you. But the government can't take action against you.
 
ZenMode said:
He has been a Dem, again, for several years.
Click to expand...
dude, calling a guy who was a long-time republican strategist and worked for the bush campaign and white house a "mainstream liberal" is a huge stretch. almost no one knows who the fuck he is, he's not a left wing thought leader. he switched parties like 4 years ago.
 
Bigs23 said:
Some crazy person killed Kirk. I’m not seeing the connection. Murder is not legal.
Click to expand...
So he was now killed by a crazy person and not the hate speech he spewed…I have seen post on this thread he got killed for his words…Other words the chickens coming home to roost….
 
Tar1978Heel said:
So he was now killed by a crazy person and not the hate speech he spewed…I have seen post on this thread he got killed for his words…Other words the chickens coming home to roost….
Click to expand...
Oh there is a reason a well known speaker was killed It is likely that his hate speech was the reason
 
4thgenheel said:
several of us on this board are members of the lgbtq community. people's sexuality isn't a fucking "social contagion" you fucking bigot.

so much bullshit and so many excuses, so little time.

calling people's sexuality and/or innate identity a "social contagion" is so fucking reprehensible.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying ALL sexuality is a choice, but I think there definitely is a "trendy" aspect to some of it.
 
Tar1978Heel said:
So he was now killed by a crazy person and not the hate speech he spewed…I have seen post on this thread he got killed for his words…Other words the chickens coming home to roost….
Click to expand...
His words probably (almost certainly) led to some crazy person killing him.

But nobody is justifying the killing of him.

Your comparison of a foreigner being giving the freedom of speech and Kirk not being giving his freedom of speech is a red herring.

1. A foreigner could just as easily be killed by a crazy person while exercising their constitutionally protected speech.
2. Kirk was given his freedom of speech. No authority ever told him he couldn't say the things he said nor attempted to silence him.

A random person killing Kirk because of what he said in no way diminishes the free speech rights of a foreigner.

Or maybe an analogy that doesn't involve free speech would clarify this for you. We all have protections against illegal search and seizure. Let's say my jealous girlfriend broke into my apartment looking for evidence that I was cheating. If I turned around and said foreigners have no constitutional right against illegal search and seizure because my girlfriend illegally searched my apartment, that would be asinine, right?

What you are saying is exactly the same thing. Kirk had freedom of speech. A foreigner has freedom of speech. Kirk's illegal killing is immaterial to either.
 
Last edited:
rodoheel said:
Blake Masters is a real POS and would clearly sell his own mother out for any semblance of power and influence, but even then I am astounded at drawing some link between "Charlie Kirk shot" and "NGOs."
Click to expand...
There are so many POS GOP members that you forget about them after a few months. Then Masters raises his ugly head.
 
Bigs23 said:
Both can be true.
Click to expand...
I agree….My problem is he was trying too have dialogue with the other side and just debating much like we do on here….I have watched him a few times but the shit was boring to me….

I agreed with some of his takes and some I didn’t….End of the day he didn’t deserve to be killed…Guy has never hurt anyone too my knowledge….

We as a Country have to get better…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top