Charlie Kirk shot and killed at Utah rally.

And really Grunts vs Elites didn't happen till most of the way through Halo 2, when the Arbiter saw through the brainwashing of the prophets and joined forces with humanity to stop the firing of Delta Halo and the eradication of all life in the galaxy. After which the Covenant split into factions and the Jiralhanae overthrew the Sangheli - the so called elites Geraldo is harping on about - as the lead race under the prophets (the San'Shyuum). The Ungoy (the Grunts) were essentially a slave race and were bred for cannon fodder and workers. They really didn't rise up against the elites. I mean those still commanded by the Jiralhanae (and Sangheli still loyal to the prophets) obviously fought the so-called elites during the Great Schism (as well as the many splintered factions following the fall of the prophets), but it was more as continuation of the same order of their lives. You hatched from a clutch of eggs in a methane filled incubation chamber and lived a life of toil, generally following the orders of the people who run the ship you were born on. I mean there were Ungoy uprisings in the ancient past, but that is not covered in the Halo video games, nor is there a great uprising by them against the Sangheli. I mean they weren't even a conquered species, they were given a lifeline off a dying planet and in the process lost their freedom. It was a voluntary move on their part, though it didn't work out so well for them.

I really don't get what Geraldo is talking about. I think he skipped the cut scenes.
 
ole howard1 said:
For me, it’s not that voters weren’t moved by Harris and other Dems calling Trump authoritarian. It’s that Republican voters — and many swing voters — didn’t care that so many CONSERVATIVES said Trump was a danger to our democracy.

Liz and Dick Cheney. I get that lots of folks, including Republicans disillusioned with the establishment, are not will about Dick Cheney. But good grief — hardcore conservative, tough politician. The same folks who voted for him and George W. Bush twice just didn’t care.

Conservative political scholar Michael Luttig said Trump was a threat.

John Kelly.

Adam Kinzinger.

Former Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh.

Trump didn’t get an endorsement from George W. Bush.

That’s what should have convinced enough swing voters and reasonable Republicans to reject Trump. I mean, right?
Click to expand...
I think the biggest issue is that conservative media paints a false reality that affects so many people, including many who don't consume it.

Going into the election, conservative media had its followers believing that the economy and inflation were in dire shape even though the opposite was true. America far outpaced the rest of the world in our Covid recovery.

They also have the ability to get people frothing at the mouth over non-issues. Transexualism is a great example of that. The amount of trans athletes playing women's sports is barely a data point, but if you ask nearly any conservative media consumer, it is rampant. Hell, one of this forum's posters practically roots for each mass shooter to be trans.

Reagan repealing the fairness doctrine is a big factor why Trump is our president.
 
ZenMode said:
It is sad that we shouldn't expect any honest acknowledgement of the role of Dems in our current political violence situation, despite the fact that much of the fear-mongering is coming from Dems and much of the violence is perpitrated by Dems.
Click to expand...
Violence against people? The right kills five times as many people as the left when it comes to political violence. It’s sad that that isn’t being acknowledged. When it gets painted as a problem equal on both sides, then the main perpetrators don’t get held responsible.
As an example, just look at how the guy at MSNBC (iirc) got immediately canned for saying something merely insensitive, while the guys on Fox News literally call for war and violence and nothing happens to them.
 
ChileG said:
Violence against people? The right kills five times as many people as the left when it comes to political violence. It’s sad that that isn’t being acknowledged. When it gets painted as a problem equal on both sides, then the main perpetrators don’t get held responsible.
As an example, just look at how the guy at MSNBC (iirc) got immediately canned for saying something merely insensitive, while the guys on Fox News literally call for war and violence and nothing happens to them.
Click to expand...
Yep, the media double standard that now exists for conservatives and liberals is ridiculous. Matt Dowd says something that offends Trumpers and he's quickly fired by MSNBC, yet conservatives led by Laura Loomer and Libs of Tik Tok have been patrolling the net looking for anybody who's said anything they find offensive about Charlie Kirk and then pressuring their employers to fire them. Hell, Dear Leader and South Carolina GOP politicians have joined the effort to fire tenured professors at Clemson and revoke tenure at universities because some of them posted things about Kirk they didn't like - and tenure was designed to protect professors from being fired for political reasons just like this.

But conservative commentators have also said offensive things about liberals since Kirk's death, including threats of violence (Laura Loomer and others), yet to date not a single one of them has been fired or even punished or disciplined. And social media is rife with attacks blaming liberals for Kirk's death, but to date no conservatives have been fired, nor have liberals been organizing to do so. Brian Kilmeade of Fox & Friends said just a couple of days ago that homeless people should be euthanized. He apologized, but unlike Dowd he wasn't even reprimanded by Fox, much less fired. At this point you'd have to be blind not to see that liberals and conservatives are being held to totally different standards when it comes to public statements and social media posts.
 
Centerpiece said:
I thought the shell casings were etched with some antifa stuff... "Ciao this and that" from the WWII antifas in Italy
Click to expand...
Multiple choice test: The terminally online gun nut kid that killed Charlie Kirk inscribed "Ciao bella bella" on a bullet because:

A) He was a history buff, specializing in century old obscure Italian anti fascist songs of which NONE of us were aware existed last week, or,
B) Because he ran across it on a Spotify playlist titled "Groyper War (America First 🇺🇸)".

I'm accepting good faith answers only.
 
Ddseddse said:
Multiple choice test: The terminally online gun nut kid that killed Charlie Kirk inscribed "Ciao bella bella" on a bullet because:

A) He was a history buff, specializing in century old obscure Italian anti fascist songs of which NONE of us were aware existed last week, or,
B) Because he ran across it on a Spotify playlist titled "Groyper War (America First 🇺🇸)".

I'm accepting good faith answers only.
Click to expand...
Again this kid was clearly a Groyper.
 
OGtruthhurts said:
i realize u want to own the pubs but it only matter to blue sheep what he was/is. red mules have their minds made up what he is. facts do not matter in todays politically divided environment. why not try another method?
Click to expand...
I don’t want to own anyone. All the signs and evidence paint him him as an obvious Groyper.
 
superrific said:
I prefer sympathy to poison ivy. That doesn't mean I think poison ivy is fine.

He "preferred" sympathy because sympathy is ultimately about condescension. It's about feeling pity and sorrow for others. Empathy is an equalizing concept. That's why it is is commonly associated with Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I think Kirk meant exactly what he said, and that is the problem. The fundamental divide between conservatives and liberal is whether they feel the need to treat members of out-groups as equal (in rights, in status, even in humanity) with their own preferred in-group. Empathy (by putting yourself in others shoes and experiencing the world as they experience it) demands that you you treat out groups as equal status to your in group. Sympathy is a cheat code where you get to still feel good about yourself while taking a dump on members of out-groups.

There's a ton of utility in this in group vs. out group frame, because it cuts the "identity politics" cord. There are many conservatives who do not use race as an in-group/out-group classifier (preferring political affiliation, for example) and that tends to stymie liberals who throw our blanket racism charges (making them easily refutable).

This doesn't change the fact that Kirk was clearly a racist. Nor does it change the fact that the racist conservatives outnumber the non-racist conservatives, and once they take full power they will purge their ranks and force their racist agenda universally (as any student of history will tell you is 100% inevitable).
 
OGtruthhurts said:
i realize u want to own the pubs but it only matter to blue sheep what he was/is. red mules have their minds made up what he is. facts do not matter in todays politically divided environment. why not try another method?
Click to expand...
It matters as a point of history and as a statement that their lies will not go unchallenged. Consider it part of a butterfly affect. It will be one more thing to extract payment for. Standing up for the place of truth and honor in our country might seem archaic to you but pretty in tune with the Founding Fathers to me. I like my POV better. It doesn't leave me wallowing in the mud with pigs fighting for garbage.
 
theel4life said:
Again this kid was clearly a Groyper."
Click to expand...
Still waiting for this discussion to gain ANY traction on MSM. The nearly universal assumption is that the bullet with "hey, fascist! Catch!" proves he shot Kirk for his right-wing rhetoric. All the attention has been on the How? and not the Why? of the shooting.
 
ChileG said:
Violence against people? The right kills five times as many people as the left when it comes to political violence. It’s sad that that isn’t being acknowledged. When it gets painted as a problem equal on both sides, then the main perpetrators don’t get held responsible.
As an example, just look at how the guy at MSNBC (iirc) got immediately canned for saying something merely insensitive, while the guys on Fox News literally call for war and violence and nothing happens to them.
Click to expand...
It's not just the violence. It's the rhetoric. Trump gets a ton of shit, rightfully so, for his rhetoric on J6. That same type of rhetoric is very common from Dems.

It doesn't have to be equal on both sides for both sides to be culpable.

Surely you agree that "We kill less than you" isn't exactly taking the high road.
 
ZenMode said:
It's not just the violence. It's the rhetoric. Trump gets a ton of shit, rightfully so, for his rhetoric on J6. That same type of rhetoric is very common from Dems.

It doesn't have to be equal on both sides for both sides to be culpable.

Surely you agree that "We kill less than you" isn't exactly taking the high road.
Click to expand...
Surely you agree that when the violence is so heavily tilted to one side that it should be acknowledged.
And look at the rhetoric coming from the leaders of the democrats compared to the republicans since CK died.
All the calls for violence and retribution are coming from the right. It’s crazy to not acknowledge the vast discrepancy.
 
ChileG said:
Surely you agree that when the violence is so heavily tilted to one side that it should be acknowledged.
And look at the rhetoric coming from the leaders of the democrats compared to the republicans since CK died.
All the calls for violence and retribution are coming from the right. It’s crazy to not acknowledge the vast discrepancy.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the violence is the result, not the cause. All across the Dem party, going back to 2016, the rhetoric about Trump has been off the charts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top