CouchPotato

He isn't lamenting the fact that they got cabinet jobs and he didn't. To be fair, I don't know what their qualifications all are or whether or not I agree with him in each of those cases, but it doesn't make him racist. I mean, I think Kamala as VP was definitely a DEI hire.

But DEI is what he is referring to here. It doesn't generally apply to white people. You can disagree about whether or not all those people are stupid if you like. Another quote you will find people trashing him for is with regard to black pilots. But he isn't saying black people cannot be pilots. He points out that because of DEI there were less qualified pilots hired over more qualified ones specifically because of race and that it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in black pilots when you know this.

So. I think Kamala was dumb as rocks, too. Not because she is black but she does happen to be black. Do you think Melania is dumb and Trump is kind of a Bozo?

So?

Here is a post from X someone is using to prove Charlie Kirk said this about black women. But if you actually watch the video he is referring to a few specific women being 'DEI hires'.

In his defense, it is probably mindlessly copying and pasting. I doubt he ever watched Charlie Kirk.

Yeah. That is not a direct quote. He never said 'black women' do not have the brain processing power.

All taken out of context. It's not that he didn't believe in civil rights but that he disagreed with certain aspects of the act and that he felt it created a permanent bureaucracy. He did say blacks were better off in many ways in the past but not because of things like Jim Crowe. He did not say 'black women' do not have the mental capacity to do responsible jobs, but he did reference a few particular black women he felt did not have the capacity to do their job. And as for the empathy thing he said he did not like the word. He said he preferred the word sympathy.

No one on our side is calling for the complete annihilation of the other side. Charlie Kirk said things he believed in. Polarizing speech is another way for saying he disagreed with the left. That is a right in a democratic society. He wasn't calling for violence. No one here praised the death of Melissa Hortman. If you asked CdnFox to condemn the attack he would do so instantly. Meanwhile up here in Canada we have a Liberal party that can't sign a condemnation of antisemitism tabled by one of their members.

I don't know if he was outraged or not. I would bet my life on it that CdnFox didn't celebrate on TikTok or trash them afterward, or imply they had it coming.

Remember all the people here defending Luigi Mangione or the Tesla arsonists. They have no issue at all with violence from their side. By they same token, they are all ready to condemn the people like the truckers as terrorists and a national security threat.

People keep posting tons of them on X, in spite of people asking them not to out of respect. One video shows a guy cheering while everyone else ducks. I saw the video of Charlie Kirk getting shot by accident just scrolling on there yesterday. Not a pleasant sight.

The guy who asks the question is totally freaked out by the shot.

Why would they care if they want to send a message?

Guns are a bunch of friggin' murder enabling jerks. That's why. They don't care about anyone but themselves. And to think it's the innocent criminals people want to lock up.

Charlie didn't have a college education. He dropped out after a few weeks and started TPUSA.

Yeah, he seems to be shaken when it happens. But the fact that Charlie was shot while discussing the topic of shootings caught my attention, too. What stands out to me is that the left makes very soft condemnations of these things from their own. It is always downplayed. Antifa doesn't exist. Mostly peaceful protests. Etc. Celebrities have talked about wishing Trump dead. And then look at when someone shot that insurance CEO. People were praising it. Not just unknown whackos either.

Uh ok, Robes. You'll have to elaborate for me. What does this have to do with what I said?

Yeah, cuz Liberals have totally helped everything in Canada. We are failing by every metric under Liberal leadership. It's conservatives job to hold the government to account. If Pierre had won, you would be complaining about it everyday, even though his ideas are far superior to Carney's.

I think it's really unfair to compare USA and Canada when it comes to things like this. Canada is a much larger land mass with way fewer people. Canada is like a small town compared to the US. It's like comparing Mayberry to Detroit. And even so, now we see crime rapidly getting worse in Canada.

No it doesn't. And that's not what the saying means. To live by the sword means to live a life of violence. You can believe someone has the right to own a gun and not be violent. That line comes from the Bible. Maybe you know this. When Jesus is arrested, Peter tries to defend him, and Jesus urges him not to, saying that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. But Jesus had spent the entire night with Peter and the disciples before he was arrested, and he was well aware that Peter had a sword and said nothing about it. In fact, it was Jesus who earlier recommended his disciples carry a sword.

Do you know what that maxim means? How did Charlie live by the sword? Believing people have the right to own a gun is not living by the sword. Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. https://biblehub.com/john/12-24.htm