Charlie Kirk shot!

[Chrissy1979]

4 minutes ago, User said:

So... you lied, you lied about lying, you tried to justify your lies, and now you try to gaslight, lying again, that I just can't read. 

You certainly don’t understand context, like how my responses were directly to people who claimed he was a leftist unequivocally. Again, how come they can make conclusions based on little evidence but I can’t?

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

What writing indicated that?  Direct quotes please 

He’ll obfuscate and then say he already answered the question. It’s the same thing every time.

[User]

3 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

You certainly don’t understand context, like how my responses were directly to people who claimed he was a leftist unequivocally. Again, how come they can make conclusions based on little evidence but I can’t?

The only context you are adding now is justification. You are claiming that yes, you lied, but it was only because others did?

And you are doing this again... after you just got done repeatedly trying to lie about your lies...

 

[Chrissy1979]

 

2 minutes ago, User said:

The only context you are adding now is justification. You are claiming that yes, you lied, but it was only because others did?

And you are doing this again... after you just got done repeatedly trying to lie about your lies...

 

Not going to answer my question? How come?

Edited September 16, 2025 by Chrissy1979

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

How come you had nothing to say about the Minnesota senator getting shot?

 

Didn't hear about it until you people started using it as an excuse for your own bad behavior now. Nobody posted a story here, it wasn't in our papers

However you can go look, when it was brought up here I had plenty to say about it. Although the motive is a lot less clear in that case because there was a personal connection between the killer and the victim I was absolutely adamant that it is horrible and inexcusable death and there's absolutely no justification for it in the slightest. I didn't mention anything about her politics

Quote

How come you didn’t take issue with the people like Donald Trump Jr who celebrated the attack on Paul Pelosi?

Who said I didn't?

In the discussions here there was plenty of conjectures to exactly what happened as part of that attack and that's entirely fair. It's not the same circumstances at all, Paul let the guy in, talk to him for an hour, the guy became violent when the cops showed up. This is all very different than a planned assassination and frankly is a little sketchy. How often do you let random people you don't know into your home carrying a hammer? But regardless, everybody here absolutely stated it was unacceptable that he was attacked and that it was cowardly to do it against an old man even if he did have mental health issues.

So there's your two excuses shot out of the water again. As usual when you have no actual logic or facts to work with you fall back on what about ISM and personal attacks but as you can see, once again you were wrong

Heck a short while ago Biden was sick and people here began suggesting they'd be happy to see him pass and myself and others stood up and said it was grossly inappropriate to wish for the death I'm an opponent even if we hate him.  That was MY reaction, you on the other hand are eager to tapdance on charlie's grave. 

 

Just in case you missed it, here's this again. Leftist like you are about 5 times more likely to condone political violence.  

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What writing indicated that?  Direct quotes please 

Go read for yourself. You can't find it you're even dumber than I thought.

And they should come as no surprise, the guy was in a relationship with a transsexual who is in the process of transiting for males to female. So it's not exactly out of the blue is it

You guys are so far in the wrong it's not even funny you're so desperate to try and cover that fact up but you're going to argue over trans symbols and writing from a guy who was dating a trans person and expressed how much he hated how Charlie talked about trans people

You're not always A dumb twat, but when you are you really put in the effort

[Chrissy1979]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Didn't hear about it until you people started using it as an excuse for your own bad behavior now. Nobody posted a story here, it wasn't in our papers

However you can go look, when it was brought up here I had plenty to say about it. Although the motive is a lot less clear in that case because there was a personal connection between the killer and the victim I was absolutely adamant that it is horrible and inexcusable death and there's absolutely no justification for it in the slightest. I didn't mention anything about her politics

Who said I didn't?

In the discussions here there was plenty of conjectures to exactly what happened as part of that attack and that's entirely fair. It's not the same circumstances at all, Paul let the guy in, talk to him for an hour, the guy became violent when the cops showed up. This is all very different than a planned assassination and frankly is a little sketchy. How often do you let random people you don't know into your home carrying a hammer? But regardless, everybody here absolutely stated it was unacceptable that he was attacked and that it was cowardly to do it against an old man even if he did have mental health issues.

So there's your two excuses shot out of the water again. As usual when you have no actual logic or facts to work with you fall back on what about ISM and personal attacks but as you can see, once again you were wrong

Heck a short while ago Biden was sick and people here began suggesting they'd be happy to see him pass and myself and others stood up and said it was grossly inappropriate to wish for the death I'm an opponent even if we hate him.  That was MY reaction, you on the other hand are eager to tapdance on charlie's grave. 

 

Just in case you missed it, here's this again. Leftist like you are about 5 times more likely to condone political violence.  

Now defend Donald Trump Jr.’s post.

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

. 

 

Just in case you missed it, here's this again. Leftist like you are about 5 times more likely to condone political violence.  

Now show the surveys about who is more likely to commit political violence.

[BeaverFever]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Go read for yourself. You can't find it you're even dumber than I thought.

AHAHAHAHA I KNEW YOU WERE FULL OF SHYTE!!!!! LMAO!!!!😂 😂😂😂😂

Here you are caught shamelessly bullshitting AGAIN!!!!  Seriously pathetic.  

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And they should come as no surprise, the guy was in a relationship with a transsexual who is in the process of transiting for males to female. So it's not exactly out of the blue is it

More of your bullshit. This one sounds like garbage you got from social media or one of your propaganda chat rooms, probably from some other far-right bullshitter. Seriously dude what is wrong with you?

 

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You guys are so far in the wrong it's not even funny you're so desperate to try and cover that fact up but you're going to argue over trans symbols and writing from a guy who was dating a trans person and expressed how much he hated how Charlie talked about trans people

You're not always A dumb twat, but when you are you really put in the effort

Pathetic. You’re posting desperate lies that you know you can’t back up with evidence, once again proving the only dumb twat is you.  If any of your garbage was remotely true Trump, his lapdogs, amd  Fox would be screaming it from the rooftops complete with photos and images, you wouldn’t have to learn about it from an anonymous bot on Truth Social who swears he heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who hear it from a guy. . 

Edited September 16, 2025 by BeaverFever

[User]

1 hour ago, Chrissy1979 said:

 

Not going to answer my question? How come?

I have answered your question. Many times. I speak for myself not others. 

Take responsibility for your own actions, stop using others to justify your own dishonesty. 

 

[User]

46 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Pathetic. You’re posting desperate lies that you know you can’t back up with evidence, once again proving the only dumb twat is you.

And... you do the same thing. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Now defend Donald Trump Jr.’s post.

 

I've never seen his post. I don't think you ever posted it here

Is this your new trick? To demand that I be held responsible for everything I haven't seen without explaining yourself 😆😆

I DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT YOUR RESPONSE IS TO KIM MCGREGOR!!! WHOSE COMMENT I"VE NEVER POSTED!!!!

Post what minitrump said and we can look at it, but i bet you wind up looking just as stupid as you always do

[Chrissy1979]

13 minutes ago, User said:

I have answered your question. Many times. I speak for myself not others. 

Take responsibility for your own actions, stop using others to justify your own dishonesty. 

 

You never answered it. I only just asked it and that was your response. Pathetic!

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I've never seen his post. I don't think you ever posted it here

Is this your new trick? To demand that I be held responsible for everything I haven't seen without explaining yourself 😆😆

I DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT YOUR RESPONSE IS TO KIM MCGREGOR!!! WHOSE COMMENT I"VE NEVER POSTED!!!!

Post what minitrump said and we can look at it, but i bet you wind up looking just as stupid as you always do

You can respond now. How do you feel about it?

[CdnFox]

Just now, Chrissy1979 said:

You never answered it. I only just asked it and that was your response. Pathetic!

Chrissy nobody takes you seriously  

You've already lost this having been caught out lying what 3? 4 times?  It would be like answering a slug  

[Chrissy1979]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Chrissy nobody takes you seriously  

You've already lost this having been caught out lying what 3? 4 times?  It would be like answering a slug  

Yes, I figured you didn’t have the integrity to answer. 😂 

[herbie]

15 hours ago, User said:

The day you do something other than a strawman would be different. 

Hyk hyk lurned a new wurd. One day might lurn wot it means, yuh yuh!

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Yes, I figured you didn’t have the integrity to answer. 😂 

You're literally replying to my answer  

You shouldn't use words you don't really understand, like integrity. Or answer apparently LOL

1 minute ago, herbie said:

Hyk hyk lurned a new wurd. One day might lurn wot it means, yuh yuh!

Straw man was a new word to you? Really? It's odd because you seem to spend so much of your time wandering around looking for a brain  LOLOL

[User]

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

Hyk hyk lurned a new wurd. One day might lurn wot it means, yuh yuh!

New?

I have been using this with you for a while now. 

7 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

You never answered it. I only just asked it and that was your response. Pathetic!

No, your repeated lies and blaming everyone is pathetic. 

[Chrissy1979]

2 minutes ago, User said:

New?

I have been using this with you for a while now. 

No, your repeated lies and blaming everyone is pathetic. 

You guys are just repeating yourself to distract from the fact you are too chickenshit to answer a simple question.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Chrissy1979 said:

You guys are just repeating yourself to distract from the fact you are too chickenshit to answer a simple question.

No we're just laughing at you because you're a dumb twat    like i said nobody takes you seriously  You're like a yappy Chihuahua trying to convince itself that the other big dogs are scared of it   LOLOL

[User]

1 minute ago, Chrissy1979 said:

You guys are just repeating yourself to distract from the fact you are too chickenshit to answer a simple question.

Even this is more dishonesty on your part. The discussion was you lying, me calling you out for lying, you lying about lying, trying to justify your lies, then back to lying about your lies and lying again... only to then ignore all that and ask me a question. 

Then you have the gal to say I am the one trying to distract?

 

[Chrissy1979]

Just now, User said:

Even this is more dishonesty on your part. The discussion was you lying, me calling you out for lying, you lying about lying, trying to justify your lies, then back to lying about your lies and lying again... only to then ignore all that and ask me a question. 

Then you have the gal to say I am the one trying to distract?

 

You’re repeating yourself. Autistic people do that.

Again, why didn’t you take offence when numerous posters were declaring the Kirk shooter to be leftist with no evidence? The only reason I can think of is you’re a hypocrite, you know it, but you don’t have the balls to admit it. I will take a non-answer as a humble admission I’m right.

[LinkSoul60]

15 minutes ago, herbie said:

Hyk hyk lurned a new wurd. One day might lurn wot it means, yuh yuh!

The strawman will be declared a liar soon enough....

[Venandi]

22 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Again, why didn’t you take offence when numerous posters were declaring the Kirk shooter to be leftist with no evidence?

It's likely because no one (except you) would ever have assumed that he (the shooter) was a wild eyed MAGAT who only shot Kirk because he "just wasn't conservative enough." In addition, the FBI released the casing engravings pretty early on... that might have served as a clue about the motive and political ideology.

In any case, there aren't enough past examples of that happening (in either liberal or conservative circles) for it to qualify as the motive of first thought. It's usually a hate related crime and sometimes it qualifies as domestic terrorism due to the political component behind the motive.

You jumped to that conclusion pretty quickly... do you have a list of such occurrences (he wasn't liberal or conservative enough) to draw from that would warrant it being the motive that came first to mind?

Just curious... if you plan to answer with something completely and blatantly partisan please pass me by. 

Edited September 16, 2025 by Venandi

[Chrissy1979]

1 minute ago, Venandi said:

It's likely because no one (except you) would ever have assumed that he (the shooter) was a wild eyed MAGAT who only shot Kirk because he "just wasn't conservative enough."

There aren't many past examples of that happening (in either liberal or conservative circles) for it to qualify as the motive of first thought. It's usually a hate related crime and sometimes it even qualifies as domestic terrorism due to the political component behind the motive.

You jumped to that conclusion pretty quickly... do you have a list of such occurrences (he wasn't liberal or conservative enough) to draw from that would warrant that being your initial motive of choice?

Just curious, if you plan to answer with something completely partisan please pass me by. 

I didn’t jump to any conclusions. I provided a counterpoint to you guys, who jumped to conclusions. You guys are just desperate to pin this on “the left” because you want to fuel the culture war because you’re loyal to Putin. But it’s true that it seems like the kid was just a gamer influenced by far-right nihilism, which is the culture of those online communities.

[Venandi]

3 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

I didn’t jump to any conclusions. I provided a counterpoint to you guys, who jumped to conclusions. You guys are just desperate to pin this on “the left” because you want to fuel the culture war because you’re loyal to Putin. But it’s true that it seems like the kid was just a gamer influenced by far-right nihilism, which is the culture of those online communities.

There is no you guys, no desperation and no intent to fuel anything.

When bagpipes are the only thing stolen I'd likely assume it was a neighbour who hated bagpipes as opposed to a bagpipe lover who wanted him to play more.

Clearly your milage differs...

Edited September 16, 2025 by Venandi

[Chrissy1979]

12 minutes ago, Venandi said:

There is no you guys, no desperation and no intent to fuel anything.

When bagpipes are the only thing stolen I'd likely assume it was a neighbour who hated bagpipes as opposed to a bagpipe lover who wanted him to play more.

Clearly your milage differs...

Right. And since Fuentes and Kirk were battling, it only makes sense that a Fuentes minion would be the shooter. 
 

Note to repetitive autistic posters: The above post is just an example of using the same logic to a different conclusion, and not an attempt at claiming I know something no one else does.

Edited September 16, 2025 by Chrissy1979