Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.

That doesn’t sound very civilized.

Context and link?

What is the context that would make this OK?

I would like to see the CK full links.

But if your question is on beheadings in general, Hamas and ISIS have done a fair amount of beheadings the last 20 years and distributed the videos to prove it and take responsibility. Any true journalist would know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Did any victims die? No

Did anyone famous in a natl scale die? No.

How many people get shot and killed daily in America? With or without gang on gang shootings?

CO boy was a social media influenced shooter who injured two and then killed himself.

Do you want him to get more attention so other troubled young men do the same? Or what do you want?

We want gun control for starters.

Just remember Charlie could be here tonight reading Goodnight Moon to his kids.

Trans or not, he probably still would be if Robinson wasn't raised in a gun-obsessed family.

Yes trans is irrelevant.

Trans is relevent because it changes the meaning of two of his meme engravings. Making him someone who was torn between his internet reality and his life reality and very cliche.

His meme engravings don't matter either actually. What only matters is that this particular individual decided to murder someone. That's it.

What the internet and our society have become matters. If this is true then he's a smart incel groyper gamer raised in a loving 3%er LEO Utah Mormon MAGA home that dropped out of college during Covid then got laid with a pre-op male to female transgender gamer from Utah and his mind couldn't handle all the contradictions.

The layers of crap all converge. He's a poster child for everything about these last few horrible years. He's a walking rorsach test.

Ok so what should we, as a society do? Provide more guns? Continue to ostracize these people? Condemn them for being different?

No. It's not even about them. This is about everything we as a society have become since Covid. Right wing and left wing internet crazies coming together to screw up this kid's mind.

It's not about guns. It's not about trans. It's not about the alt-right. It's not about internet grifting. It's not about the politicization of everything. It's not about calls for retribution. It's not about mocking a victim. It's about all of it coming together in some sick concoction.

We need a cure for everything. And in all seriousness that cure is the Epstein files. It's the one thing we all agree should be released in full and let the chips fall where they lay.

If we all agree on it then why do the sleazy Republicans keep voting to block it?

We need single issue bills put FW.

Not 800 pages of horse trading ones.

Can you cite the extraneous garbage in the Epstein bill? Or are you just dodging and deflecting with nonsense as usual?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.

That doesn’t sound very civilized.

Context and link?

What is the context that would make this OK?

I would like to see the CK full links.

But if your question is on beheadings in general, Hamas and ISIS have done a fair amount of beheadings the last 20 years and distributed the videos to prove it and take responsibility. Any true journalist would know this.

You have been told about the information, if you want it, get it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

Golly with wrong perceptions and lame deflections like that, what do you tell domestic abusers when they lash out?

That comparison doesn’t work. Talking about the predictability of backlash to hateful or offensive speech is not the same thing as excusing or condoning abuse. Saying an outcome can be unsurprising is a descriptive point, not a moral defense. You keep shifting toward justification, when the point being made is about likelihood. Predictable does not mean acceptable.

It’s not predictable to shoot a politician because of what they said.

That’s very rare.

It’s also not acceptable to shoot a politician.

Do you find it acceptable?

You can read my post over again to get all the answers you need.

#NonResponse

Question to you remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Did any victims die? No

Did anyone famous in a natl scale die? No.

How many people get shot and killed daily in America? With or without gang on gang shootings?

CO boy was a social media influenced shooter who injured two and then killed himself.

Do you want him to get more attention so other troubled young men do the same? Or what do you want?

We want gun control for starters.

Just remember Charlie could be here tonight reading Goodnight Moon to his kids.

Trans or not, he probably still would be if Robinson wasn't raised in a gun-obsessed family.

Yes trans is irrelevant.

Trans is relevent because it changes the meaning of two of his meme engravings. Making him someone who was torn between his internet reality and his life reality and very cliche.

His meme engravings don't matter either actually. What only matters is that this particular individual decided to murder someone. That's it.

What the internet and our society have become matters. If this is true then he's a smart incel groyper gamer raised in a loving 3%er LEO Utah Mormon MAGA home that dropped out of college during Covid then got laid with a pre-op male to female transgender gamer from Utah and his mind couldn't handle all the contradictions.

The layers of crap all converge. He's a poster child for everything about these last few horrible years. He's a walking rorsach test.

Ok so what should we, as a society do? Provide more guns? Continue to ostracize these people? Condemn them for being different?

No. It's not even about them. This is about everything we as a society have become since Covid. Right wing and left wing internet crazies coming together to screw up this kid's mind.

It's not about guns. It's not about trans. It's not about the alt-right. It's not about internet grifting. It's not about the politicization of everything. It's not about calls for retribution. It's not about mocking a victim. It's about all of it coming together in some sick concoction.

We need a cure for everything. And in all seriousness that cure is the Epstein files. It's the one thing we all agree should be released in full and let the chips fall where they lay.

If we all agree on it then why do the sleazy Republicans keep voting to block it?

We need single issue bills put FW.

Not 800 pages of horse trading ones.

Can you cite the extraneous garbage in the Epstein bill? Or are you just dodging and deflecting with nonsense as usual?

You are the one with the concern so go forth and google to satisfy your curiosity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.

That doesn’t sound very civilized.

Context and link?

What is the context that would make this OK?

I would like to see the CK full links.

But if your question is on beheadings in general, Hamas and ISIS have done a fair amount of beheadings the last 20 years and distributed the videos to prove it and take responsibility. Any true journalist would know this.

1. Sealioning

2. Whataboutism

Attempted delay of game. Fifteen yard penalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

Golly with wrong perceptions and lame deflections like that, what do you tell domestic abusers when they lash out?

That comparison doesn’t work. Talking about the predictability of backlash to hateful or offensive speech is not the same thing as excusing or condoning abuse. Saying an outcome can be unsurprising is a descriptive point, not a moral defense. You keep shifting toward justification, when the point being made is about likelihood. Predictable does not mean acceptable.

It’s not predictable to shoot a politician because of what they said.

That’s very rare.

It’s also not acceptable to shoot a politician.

Do you find it acceptable?

You can read my post over again to get all the answers you need.

#NonResponse

Question to you remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

No one has to answer your questions to feel confident in their own credibility. Answer your own questions, they are no one else's concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.

That doesn’t sound very civilized.

Context and link?

What is the context that would make this OK?

I would like to see the CK full links.

But if your question is on beheadings in general, Hamas and ISIS have done a fair amount of beheadings the last 20 years and distributed the videos to prove it and take responsibility. Any true journalist would know this.

1. Sealioning

2. Whataboutism

Attempted delay of game. Fifteen yard penalty.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My main takeaway from this incident is that this country is becoming batshit insane and for the first time in my life I’m scared for our future. It’s getting WEIRD out here.

We're still waiting for the Jan 6th cameo to drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A Virginia anesthesiologist was fired after making "highly inappropriate comments supporting violence" against Charlie Kirk following his assassination, according to Riverside Walter Reed Hospital. The employee's contract was terminated by North American Partners in Anesthesia.

Hmmm another one of these articles that doesn’t actually include the post in question.

The employer in that article didn’t release the anesthesiologist’s name.

But here’s a different anesthesiologist who said she is glad Charlie Kirk got himself shot. She is not a bot.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, some conservatives openly celebrated her passing. A right-wing commentator called her a “mass murdering hag” who had “ruined more lives than Hitler, Mao & Stalin combined.” Another conservative pastor framed her death as “celestially ordained” and proclaimed, “This belongs to God.” Gordon Klingenschmitt, an evangelical activist and former Republican lawmaker, said he mourned only that she “apparently did not know Christ,” making clear he saw her death as spiritually justified. Even within Republican circles, Trump aides were quoted privately saying her death was “super” in terms of political impact, treating her passing less as a tragedy and more as an opportunity.

Unclear if the above examples are public figures with large followers base, a show, income from it, etc. Or just a little jerk from podunk online.

As you know, with the internet, everyone and anyone can post whatever. And opinions are like a-holes, everyone’s got one.

So what's your point, not following.

Your claim: a pastor somewhere said this, some commentator said that.

Other person: unclear if your commentators are big names or podunk people. Everyone has an opinion, whose do you follow?

And RBG she lived an awesome life so lots to celebrate.
Unf Obama didn’t replace her in a timely manner….

I am still lost because why does if they are big names or not matter, I still don't get the point.

Lol. You don’t have a point now nor when you quote a bunch of randos.

You were the one claiming random people and notable people were celebrating C.K.'s death. Random people and notable people celebrated R.B.G. death. So that is why I am confused by your follow up to mine 100%. Why does it matter that they are random (and they are not actually, but again, accordingly to you originally, it doesn't matter). If people can celebrate one, why not the other?

Ruth bader Ginsburg wasn’t shot to death at work. She was in her mid 80s and got ill. Wtf

Both Charlie and ruth had many accomplishments to celebrate. But one was 31 with young kids and shot to death on stage, and the other was old with great grandchildren and refused to retire.

So you're saying that Trump will fit into RBG's fact pattern and celebrations should be handled accordingly (i.e., ignored)?

Anyone who is upset about people celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death had better hold onto their MAGA hats when Trump passes (hopefully of natural causes with no foul play involved) because there will be widespread celebration. People already post on social media about the day when “it” happens. I’m actually concerned that even if he dies peacefully in his sleep at 90+, there will be people who will insist he was killed by radical leftists or the deep state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

I don’t think the following quote counts as civilized.

CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): I know what you're thinking, we've got to get Joe Biden out of the way so we can run against Kammy. Oh my goodness, is she beatable. It's like Black Hillary on steroids. Is she Black? I guess she says she's Caribbean or whatever. ...

She would be a lot easier to beat than Joe Biden. Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.

Honest and accurate.

That’s what I’d call that.

But she was no black Hillary. Hillary was well-qualified, and I hated to see her in that neutered Dept of State role Obama put her in. But she was corrupt.

Neutered? How is Secretary of State a neutered role? Not only did Hillary get that but Obama cleared the field out intentionally for Hillary’s “pathway to the nomination”. That is why the party is still ruined to this day. Except Bernie, no Democrat challenged Hillary in 2016. She wanted a coronation

Omg, every FSO officers knows all she did was fly around for a couple years doing meet & greets while Putin took over Crimea, Iran developed nukes, and No Korea buddies up with Russia.

This is well documented. She accomplished nothing when she should have been let loose to do foreign policy.

Obama gets a F in foreign policy as a president, and every think tank in town agrees.

He also gets an F for backing Hillary and all her baggage. Not so sure he did really back here and I was living in Philly at the time, a big swing state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A Virginia anesthesiologist was fired after making "highly inappropriate comments supporting violence" against Charlie Kirk following his assassination, according to Riverside Walter Reed Hospital. The employee's contract was terminated by North American Partners in Anesthesia.

Hmmm another one of these articles that doesn’t actually include the post in question.

The employer in that article didn’t release the anesthesiologist’s name.

But here’s a different anesthesiologist who said she is glad Charlie Kirk got himself shot. She is not a bot.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, some conservatives openly celebrated her passing. A right-wing commentator called her a “mass murdering hag” who had “ruined more lives than Hitler, Mao & Stalin combined.” Another conservative pastor framed her death as “celestially ordained” and proclaimed, “This belongs to God.” Gordon Klingenschmitt, an evangelical activist and former Republican lawmaker, said he mourned only that she “apparently did not know Christ,” making clear he saw her death as spiritually justified. Even within Republican circles, Trump aides were quoted privately saying her death was “super” in terms of political impact, treating her passing less as a tragedy and more as an opportunity.

Unclear if the above examples are public figures with large followers base, a show, income from it, etc. Or just a little jerk from podunk online.

As you know, with the internet, everyone and anyone can post whatever. And opinions are like a-holes, everyone’s got one.

So what's your point, not following.

Your claim: a pastor somewhere said this, some commentator said that.

Other person: unclear if your commentators are big names or podunk people. Everyone has an opinion, whose do you follow?

And RBG she lived an awesome life so lots to celebrate.
Unf Obama didn’t replace her in a timely manner….

I am still lost because why does if they are big names or not matter, I still don't get the point.

Lol. You don’t have a point now nor when you quote a bunch of randos.

You were the one claiming random people and notable people were celebrating C.K.'s death. Random people and notable people celebrated R.B.G. death. So that is why I am confused by your follow up to mine 100%. Why does it matter that they are random (and they are not actually, but again, accordingly to you originally, it doesn't matter). If people can celebrate one, why not the other?

Ruth bader Ginsburg wasn’t shot to death at work. She was in her mid 80s and got ill. Wtf

Both Charlie and ruth had many accomplishments to celebrate. But one was 31 with young kids and shot to death on stage, and the other was old with great grandchildren and refused to retire.

So you're saying that Trump will fit into RBG's fact pattern and celebrations should be handled accordingly (i.e., ignored)?

Anyone who is upset about people celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death had better hold onto their MAGA hats when Trump passes (hopefully of natural causes with no foul play involved) because there will be widespread celebration. People already post on social media about the day when “it” happens. I’m actually concerned that even if he dies peacefully in his sleep at 90+, there will be people who will insist he was killed by radical leftists or the deep state.

But the right is prepping now to censor us from celebrating that when it happens. This stuff they are doing with C.K. is a test run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BREAKING: 6 sources confirm to Axios that Tyler Robinson's roommate is transgender and they all believe that the two were in a "romantic relationship"

Investigators believe that this could be the "key to establishing motive" in the case

Officials confirmed earlier that the alleged Charlie Kirk assassin was "deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology"

This may or may not be true. If true, what is there to be done except for put killer in jail, and implement stricter gun control? Nothing else.

I'm leaning towards not true. The suspect has a transgender roommate that he was allegedly in a romantic relationship with and we are just now hearing about it? Yeah, I don't think so.

And who are we hearing about it from? "Six sources close to the investigation" - oh you mean the FBI under the control of the President who started blaming "the left" like three seconds after Kirk was shot.

I call BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

I don’t think the following quote counts as civilized.

CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): I know what you're thinking, we've got to get Joe Biden out of the way so we can run against Kammy. Oh my goodness, is she beatable. It's like Black Hillary on steroids. Is she Black? I guess she says she's Caribbean or whatever. ...

She would be a lot easier to beat than Joe Biden. Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.

Honest and accurate.

That’s what I’d call that.

But she was no black Hillary. Hillary was well-qualified, and I hated to see her in that neutered Dept of State role Obama put her in. But she was corrupt.

Neutered? How is Secretary of State a neutered role? Not only did Hillary get that but Obama cleared the field out intentionally for Hillary’s “pathway to the nomination”. That is why the party is still ruined to this day. Except Bernie, no Democrat challenged Hillary in 2016. She wanted a coronation

Omg, every FSO officers knows all she did was fly around for a couple years doing meet & greets while Putin took over Crimea, Iran developed nukes, and No Korea buddies up with Russia.

This is well documented. She accomplished nothing when she should have been let loose to do foreign policy.

Obama gets a F in foreign policy as a president, and every think tank in town agrees.

He also gets an F for backing Hillary and all her baggage. Not so sure he did really back here and I was living in Philly at the time, a big swing state.

So you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so he was in a relationship with a trans person. The right will resume its regularly scheduled revenge or whatever Mrs. Kirk and Trump were referring to.

Ok and keep on churning out those guns.

Let’s buying back everyone’s gun for $2000 each and then sell them to some other country, highest bidder!

$2,000 x 400,000,000?

Yeah! What’s your plan to do so?