Charlie Kirk shot!

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Give us one reason to not do that? T

Uh, cuz it would be blatantly unconstitutional? Do you guys only chamption the constitution when it suits your purpose? You love the 1st amendment but only for your opinions, and of course, love the 2nd amendment, but the rest can be hand-waved away as unimportant?

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

But the left has to get their shìt together. Start acting like normal people. Stop being so damned racist. Stop exploiting the poor for votes. Stop grooming children. Stop normalizing mental illness. Stop supporting genocide. 

I could agree with much of that. I wish the Right would get their act together, too, and stop acting like lunatics.

 

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Some people are fast thinkers and have facts at their fingertips and some aren't.

It seems Kirk was never bothered by what might, or might not, be factual. 
 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Political_positions_and_activities

Promotion of falsehoods and conspiracy theories

External videos
Charlie Kirk ~ The Conservative Forum ~ 9-8-2015 on YouTube (Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley) (at 2:10–3:20)

According to Forbes, Kirk was known for "his repudiation of liberal college education and embrace of pro-Trump conspiracy theories".^[48] Kirk promoted the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and described universities as "islands of totalitarianism".^[5][49][50]

In a 2015 speech at the Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley, Kirk stated that he had applied to the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, and was not accepted.^[10] He said that "the slot he considered his went to 'a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and a different persuasion'" whose test scores he claimed he knew.^[5] He told The New Yorker in 2017 that he was being sarcastic when he said it.^[5] He told the Chicago Tribune in 2018 that "he was just repeating something he'd been told",^[4][51] while at a New Hampshire Turning Point event featuring Rand Paul in October 2019 he claimed that he never said it.^[51]

In July 2018, Kirk falsely claimed on social media that Justice Department statistics showed an increase in human trafficking arrests from 1,952 in the year 2016 to 6,087 in the first half of 2018. He deleted the tweet without an explanation the next day, after a fact-checker had pointed out that the false 2018 number had originated on the conspiracy site 8chan.^[52][53] In December 2018, Kirk falsely claimed that protesters in the French yellow vests movement chanted "We want Trump". These false claims were later repeated by President Trump himself.^[54]

Kirk spread falsehoods about voter fraud,^[55][56] as well as the COVID-19 pandemic.^[48] In defending the Trump administration's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Kirk falsely stated that, during the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, it "took President Barack Obama 'millions infected and over 1,000 deaths'" to declare a public health emergency.^[57][58] In fact, when the Obama administration acknowledged the WHO's declaration of a public health emergency on April 26, 2009,^[59] there were less than 280 cases of H1N1 infection reported in the U.S.,^[60] and the first confirmed death (of a Mexican toddler on vacation) occurred the next day, April 27.^[61] The WHO projected 1,000,000+ U.S. cases on June 25, after declaring a pandemic on June 11.^[62]

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't think that violent offenders should get bail. That's what I'm saying, and it's what Kirk meant as well. 

I agree with that in theory. The reality is, we have a shitty court system that is slow and inefficient. And when it comes to bail, that collides with the right to be presumed innocent. How do you presume someone is innocent and keep them locked up for months, maybe even years at a time, until their case is resolved? 

[User]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

It seems Kirk was never bothered by what might, or might not, be factual. 

You certainly are not bothered by it. 

[Venandi]

33 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

MAGA needed a galvanizing event to declare war and suspend the elections. 

Ya, those MAGATs are pretty clever eh? 

Ammunition used to assassinate Charlie Kirk engraved with trans, antifascist messages. Suspect still at large

[I am Groot]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

It seems Kirk was never bothered by what might, or might not, be factual. 

Same as the US president and our prime minister.

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

According to Forbes, Kirk was known for "his repudiation of liberal college education and embrace of pro-Trump conspiracy theories".^[48] Kirk promoted the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and described universities as "islands of totalitarianism".^[5][49][50]

I agree with him on that one. It's not a conspiracy theory, though. Nobody thinks there's some organized cabal behind it.

As for what else he might have said, you can find a thousand politicians as dishonest - on both sides.

 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, User said:

You certainly are not bothered by it. 

So you say….   I guess you’re only bothered by my (so-called) lies, not the lies peddled  by propagandists like Kirk?   Those ones are good lies?

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

As for what else he might have said, you can find a thousand politicians as dishonest - on both sides.

Why would that bother you if you’re a fan of Kirk’s lies?  

[User]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

So you say….   I guess you’re only bothered by my (so-called) lies, not the lies peddled  by propagandists like Kirk?   Those ones are good lies?

Why don't you go start a new thread talking about what Kirk has said in the past and your claims he was lying. 

The only thing you are doing here is purposefully shitting on the man and outright lying about him yourself. I have pointed out your lies and you have run from having a shred of integrity yourself and owning up to that. 

 

[robosmith]

20 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

A professional? Is there a school you go to where they teach debating? I know there are debating societies/clubs but I doubt Kirk got any sort of 'professional' training in debating. Some people are fast thinkers and have facts at their fingertips and some aren't. We can see that in the House of Commons, or on the infrequent debates we see on TV. He debates people a lot and is comfortable in front of crowds. But the same could be said of almost any politician at any level. Should he not let people argue/debate with him? Should he require some sort of experience level before they are allowed to approach the microphone?

Kirk was getting paid to debate by TPA and that makes him a professional.

20 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Neither side in the US has any concept of those words.

Esp NOT the side of the PATHOLOGICAL LIAR POTUS.

Edited September 11, 2025 by robosmith

[Nationalist]

19 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

A professional? Is there a school you go to where they teach debating? I know there are debating societies/clubs but I doubt Kirk got any sort of 'professional' training in debating. Some people are fast thinkers and have facts at their fingertips and some aren't. We can see that in the House of Commons, or on the infrequent debates we see on TV. He debates people a lot and is comfortable in front of crowds. But the same could be said of almost any politician at any level. Should he not let people argue/debate with him? Should he require some sort of experience level before they are allowed to approach the microphone?

Neither side in the US has any concept of those words.

One side waves the flag...

The other burns it.

Take your pick.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Note that I have stated that there are issues with both sides, and condemned the violence yet you feel a need to box me in as an enemy of some kind.

You, on the other hand, blame "the left".

100% wrong. 

You made a statement which implies that both sides are equal partners in the "incitement and support of political violence" category, and nothing could possibly be further from the truth. 

If you don't wanna get called out for being deceitful then be more honest and accurate. 

 

I don't "blame" the left. I gave examples of the leftist leaders and their MSM cohorts inciting, supporting and condoning radical political and racial violence consistently and constantly, over more than a decade. 

If you'd like to try and make your equivalency argument again, then go ahead and show me where conservative politicians incited violence, where they actively supported it, and where they condoned it. Find a video where Rebel News was caught cheering because a Canadian politician/political figure was murdered.

You equated the Green Party with the FLQ, Michael. You equated islamic state with the Brazilian Army. That takes a bit of evidence, because most people aren't aware of the war crimes committed by the Green Party and the Brazilian army. 

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

One side waves the flag...

The other burns it.

Take your pick.

Trump hugging the flag only means he knows how to PANDER and he's FOOLED YOU.

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Why don't you go start a new thread

I didn’t realize this was a respectful memorial thread where anything political shouldn’t be uttered for fear of disrespecting the deceased. 

You seem to engage on a range of topics in this thread too though   

 

[Nationalist]

Just now, robosmith said:

Trump hugging the flag only means he knows how to PANDER and he's FOOLED YOU.

I've lost patience with you Dweebles.

You will not be satisfied until Trump is dead. I pity your soul.

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

If you'd like to try and make your equivalency argument again, then go ahead and show me where conservative politicians incited violence, where they actively supported it, and where they condoned it.

Trump STRONGLY supported the VIOLENCE on J6 by PARDONING ALL of the PERPETRATORS. Duh

Because they did EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED.

 

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

One side waves the flag...

The other burns it.

Both are free expression?

[West]

[robosmith]

Just now, Nationalist said:

I've lost patience with you Dweebles.

You will not be satisfied until Trump is dead. I pity your soul.

I will not be satisfied UNTIL he STOPS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.

Of course you care NOTHING about OUR CONSTITUTION, Canuck.

[CdnFox]

Just now, robosmith said:

I will not be satisfied UNTIL he STOPS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.

Of course you care NOTHING about OUR CONSTITUTION, Canuck.

Killing people violates the constitution and you seem pretty happy when your side does that. 

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Both are free expression?

Yes they are.

Of the 2, you choose to side with flag burners.

Conga-rats.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, West said:

No, it's why did GUNS ENABLE CRIMINALS to DO THIS?

[WestCanMan]

23 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I agree with that in theory. The reality is, we have a shitty court system that is slow and inefficient. And when it comes to bail, that collides with the right to be presumed innocent. How do you presume someone is innocent and keep them locked up for months, maybe even years at a time, until their case is resolved? 

That's actually pretty easy.

Judges base the amount of bail required on the risk of flight posed by the accused, their rap sheet, the amount of evidence against them, the severity of their crime, the level of violence in their crime, the danger to the general public posed by them, etc, etc. 

If someone is caught on video committing a violent crime, their bail will be anywhere from high to astronomical, if they can even get bail.

If the police think someone may have assaulted their spouse but the suspect has no priors, no criminal history, there's barely enough evidence to even get a trial, there's no physical evidence of violence, and the suspect owns a house and a successful business nearby, bail will be set low. 

The bail system was designed to get people to show up for trial and yet to keep people in jail if there's ample evidence that a suspect needs to be held in order to keep the public safe.  

Edited September 11, 2025 by WestCanMan

[West]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No, it's why did GUNS ENABLE CRIMINALS to DO THIS?

Wrong. 

Democrats are always trying to silence people whether by using whistles, attacking their employment or in this case SHOOTING A MAN IN THE NECK. 

[User]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I didn’t realize this was a respectful memorial thread where anything political shouldn’t be uttered for fear of disrespecting the deceased. 

You seem to engage on a range of topics in this thread too though   

 

Clearly you don't give two shits about respect or honesty here at all. 

It shouldn't have to be spelled out to you either. 

I already explained earlier I was not going to be engaging with you as if this was some kind of normal discussion until you recanted your lies and admitted your dishonesty. 

[gatomontes99]

The face of evil.