The Charlie Kirk Thread

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…
 
ZenMode said:
Matt Dowd was fired for these comments.

Another very concerning train of thought from a mainstream liberal with a big microphone.

Click to expand...

Matt Dowd is not a liberal

“… With Bush as president, Dowd was put on the Republican National Committee payroll and became an intimate participant in White House strategy sessions. Bush and the Republicans now exploited divisive wedge issues and tactics with a vengeance. After Sept. 11, 2001, fear was bundled with loathing, the terrorist threat from abroad conflated with the gay menace within. By 2004, relying on Dowd’s numbers, Republicans made gay marriage the most salient social issue, exceeding abortion and gun control in its inflammatory potential to mobilize conservatives. Dowd prescribed the strategy for targeting of Republican base voters’ “anger points,” as GOP consultants called them, for maximum turnout.

… In the political rinse cycle, Dowd transformed the disinformation justifying the Iraq war into platitudinous Republican talking points. In the interviews he granted, Dowd repeated them effortlessly. “Events in Iraq,” he told National Public Radio during the Republican Convention in September 2004, “and removing Saddam Hussein is all part of the war on terror. You can’t separate out removing a brutal dictator from a place that harbored terrorists from the war on terror.” One plus one equals three; the clock struck 13.

…
He was, he said, just creating a new Republican “brand.” After Rove executed Dowd’s carefully calculated targeting to produce Bush’s narrow victory in 2004, Dowd was triumphant. “Issues don’t matter in presidential campaigns,” he exulted in 2005, “it’s your brand values that matter.” For Dowd, facts didn’t matter either, only “brand” identity.

Contaminating his rival’s brand was as vital as enhancing his own. Dowd had been central in formulating the 2002 midterm campaign that zeroed in on the Democrats’ patriotism. In 2004, he and Rove crafted the negative attack on Kerry as a “flip-flopper.” Asked about the TV ads ripping Kerry, Dowd said on Sept. 22, 2004, on CNN, “I think it’s totally tasteful. And the American public is going to be fine with it.” He also blithely defended the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth defamation of Kerry’s sterling Vietnam War record. “I think the Swift boat ads were part of that dialogue,” he said in a 2005 PBS “Frontline” documentary, “but it was more important in that they pointed out something about John Kerry, which is, all this guy’s talking about is his Vietnam record. What does that have to do with the war on terror?”…”

www.salon.com

Matthew Dowd's not-so-miraculous conversion - Salon.com

Is the former Bush pollster a true believer turned disillusioned critic, or was he an opportunist from the get-go?
www.salon.com www.salon.com

Dowd is an opportunist, though.
 
Tar1978Heel said:
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…
Click to expand...
Not many are saying he deserved to be killed. And no one is defending the killer.

Kirk was quite hateful and hurtful to a lot of people it’s not surprising that not everyone is shattered by his death.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Because carrying around a firearm right after someone had been murdered wouldn't be a wise thing to do if you wanted to get away.
Click to expand...
But then why take it with you from the roof? The odds that they wouldn’t find it in the woods is incredibly low. Why take the risk of jumping off the roof with the gun only to leave it in the woods? If that were the plan, just leave the gun on the roof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top