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:

“I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have spent hours out of my life the past few days watching Charlie Kirk debates”

She’s having an awakening after seeing that all the clips the media used to villainize Charlie Kirk were ALL LIES, they were all clipped and out of context

“The example I want to use is that clip that was everywhere that went viral, everybody was quoting it where Charlie said, I don't like the word empathy. We've probably all seen the short and the long version at this point where he goes on to clarify that he prefers the word sympathy.

Agree with them or disagree with them, doesn't matter to me. The point is the real conversation never happened because the clip was cut in half. Why? To reinforce the idea that the right is full of these monsters who reject human feelings.

That that wasn't an accident. That omission was deliberate and strategic”

She talks about how her own Party has become a “mob mentality”

“It's not about Charlie Kirk. It's about us taking the time to reflect. Are we living up to our own standards and our own ideals? Are we leading with Integrity? Are we just falling into a different version of the same trap? Because from my viewpoint, I don't know, it feels like we're becoming a lot like the things we claim to stand against”

It's not the media. I've seen clips of his too where MAGA says "See he's debating a gay man, he doesn't hate gay people." BUT, what he essentially told this young gay conservative is that "You don't have to always define yourself by your sexuality," and on...ergo "don't ask, don't tell." Charlie also said, "But I don't agree with your lifestyle."

I don't consider that "friendly to gays." To tell a young man that he needs to hide his relationships, yet Kirk was all about promoting his relationship with his wife. Also, he thinks being gay is a choice.

Was his statement akin to it's okay for some people to die of gun deaths so we can have the 2nd Amendment taken out of context?

Good grief. Telling someone they don’t have to define themselves by their sexuality is perfectly appropriate and actually good advice. But I wouldn’t expect someone from the party that embraces identity politics to understand that.

So you never hold hands in public with your spouse? If so, you are defining your sexuality.

Your thinking is so damned shallow. Holding hands is a sign of affection and doesn’t define you as a person. You are clearly unable to grasp the depth of Kirk’s comments. Hopefully the young man to whom he was speaking was able to think a bit deeper than you.

So tell us what you think he meant by this...

I don’t have to surmise. Kirk actually told him…..


'I don't think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexual attraction because that's not who you are,' the father-of-two responded.

Chris nodded in agreement, placing a hand on his chest as he replied sympathetically: 'I like to be thought of as a person.'

'You are a complete human being, and I'm sure you treat people well, and you're studying something,' Kirk continued.

'I just think that we have gone a long way in the negative direction in this country where we act as if the most important part of your identity is what you do in the bedroom,' Kirk said.

So, clearly "don't ask, don't tell." You forgot the part where he said he didn't condone the student's "lifestyle." It's fine for Charlie to be straight. He wants people to marry and procreate. He wants this man to procreate or be silent, while furthering the conservative cause.

I have to point out the obvious here. It takes a male and a female to procreate. And if humans cease to procreate, our species becomes extinct. That’s science.

I'm done with the willfully obtuse. We're all on to your hatred and denial though.

[Anonymous]

If you're finding it "difficult to discern" you're either underinformed or have been misled.

Democrats supported and sponsored a bill condemning ALL political violence: H.Res 746. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/...ion/746/text?s=1&r=1 and which pushed for action and accountability.

Republicans instead pushed for a resolution that ONLY condemns the attack on Charlie Kirk and which strips out anything else that could have been meaningful. Let's compare the Republican bill 719 to the Democrat bill 746

Primary Focus
H.Res.719 Honors Charlie Kirk and condemns his assassination
H.Res.746 Condemns all forms of political violence and dehumanizing rhetoric

Scope of Condemnation
H.Res.719 Specific to one incident involving a conservative figure
H.Res.746 Broad and inclusive, covering violence across the political spectrum

Language
H.Res.719 Memorial-style, focused on Kirk’s legacy
H.Res.746 Institutional and civic, focused on democratic norms and safety

Sponsors
H.Res.719 Republican-led
H.Res.746 Democrat-led (Rep. Marc Veasey and 100+ cosponsors)

Mention of Other Incidents
H.Res.719 None
H.Res.746 Includes attacks on figures from both parties (e.g., Charlie Kirk, Melissa Hortman, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Brett Kavanaugh, Gretchen Whitmer)

Call to Action
H.Res.719 Symbolic tribute
H.Res.746 Urges law enforcement accountability, civil discourse, and bipartisan rejection of violent rhetoric

Tone
H.Res.719 Solemn and commemorative
H.Res.746 Systemic and preventative

So if you think or want to claim that Democrats are weak on this or didn't want to condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk you are dead wrong. If anything it's the Republicans showing weakness in what they passed.

The Democrats' bill contained a stronger condemnation of political violence than the Republicans bill did. Republicans do not get to go around saying Democrats aren't condemning political violence, are somehow wishy washy or not condemning it strongly enough. That's just a straight-up lie. I think the PP who said "it's difficult to discern" actually owes an apology.

Good grief. It is hard to believe that nearly half of the democrats could not bring themselves to vote for a resolution condemning the killing of Charlie Kirk. Amazing.

Ridiculous! Don't "good grief" us! You are being willfully obtuse. Again, the Democrats bill language was STRONGER in condemning political violence than the Republican bill is. That cannot be denied.

[Anonymous]

What's pathetic and disgraceful is that Republicans refused to sign on to a bill that condemned political violence from BOTH sides.

The Democrat bill strongly condemned the murder of Charlie Kirk and the attempts on Donald Trump but since it also included a condemnation of the murder of Melissa Hortman and the brutal attack on Paul Pelosi they REFUSED TO SIGN IT.

Republicans are craven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have spent hours out of my life the past few days watching Charlie Kirk debates”

She’s having an awakening after seeing that all the clips the media used to villainize Charlie Kirk were ALL LIES, they were all clipped and out of context

“The example I want to use is that clip that was everywhere that went viral, everybody was quoting it where Charlie said, I don't like the word empathy. We've probably all seen the short and the long version at this point where he goes on to clarify that he prefers the word sympathy.

Agree with them or disagree with them, doesn't matter to me. The point is the real conversation never happened because the clip was cut in half. Why? To reinforce the idea that the right is full of these monsters who reject human feelings.

That that wasn't an accident. That omission was deliberate and strategic”

She talks about how her own Party has become a “mob mentality”

“It's not about Charlie Kirk. It's about us taking the time to reflect. Are we living up to our own standards and our own ideals? Are we leading with Integrity? Are we just falling into a different version of the same trap? Because from my viewpoint, I don't know, it feels like we're becoming a lot like the things we claim to stand against”

It's not the media. I've seen clips of his too where MAGA says "See he's debating a gay man, he doesn't hate gay people." BUT, what he essentially told this young gay conservative is that "You don't have to always define yourself by your sexuality," and on...ergo "don't ask, don't tell." Charlie also said, "But I don't agree with your lifestyle."

I don't consider that "friendly to gays." To tell a young man that he needs to hide his relationships, yet Kirk was all about promoting his relationship with his wife. Also, he thinks being gay is a choice.

Was his statement akin to it's okay for some people to die of gun deaths so we can have the 2nd Amendment taken out of context?

Good grief. Telling someone they don’t have to define themselves by their sexuality is perfectly appropriate and actually good advice. But I wouldn’t expect someone from the party that embraces identity politics to understand that.

So you never hold hands in public with your spouse? If so, you are defining your sexuality.

Your thinking is so damned shallow. Holding hands is a sign of affection and doesn’t define you as a person. You are clearly unable to grasp the depth of Kirk’s comments. Hopefully the young man to whom he was speaking was able to think a bit deeper than you.

So tell us what you think he meant by this...

I don’t have to surmise. Kirk actually told him…..


'I don't think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexual attraction because that's not who you are,' the father-of-two responded.

Chris nodded in agreement, placing a hand on his chest as he replied sympathetically: 'I like to be thought of as a person.'

'You are a complete human being, and I'm sure you treat people well, and you're studying something,' Kirk continued.

'I just think that we have gone a long way in the negative direction in this country where we act as if the most important part of your identity is what you do in the bedroom,' Kirk said.

So, clearly "don't ask, don't tell." You forgot the part where he said he didn't condone the student's "lifestyle." It's fine for Charlie to be straight. He wants people to marry and procreate. He wants this man to procreate or be silent, while furthering the conservative cause.

And you are attributing words and thoughts to him that he never said.
It is no wonder that so many people have misunderstood Charlie Kirk when people like you try to “interpret” his words in such negative ways. I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have spent hours out of my life the past few days watching Charlie Kirk debates”

She’s having an awakening after seeing that all the clips the media used to villainize Charlie Kirk were ALL LIES, they were all clipped and out of context

“The example I want to use is that clip that was everywhere that went viral, everybody was quoting it where Charlie said, I don't like the word empathy. We've probably all seen the short and the long version at this point where he goes on to clarify that he prefers the word sympathy.

Agree with them or disagree with them, doesn't matter to me. The point is the real conversation never happened because the clip was cut in half. Why? To reinforce the idea that the right is full of these monsters who reject human feelings.

That that wasn't an accident. That omission was deliberate and strategic”

She talks about how her own Party has become a “mob mentality”

“It's not about Charlie Kirk. It's about us taking the time to reflect. Are we living up to our own standards and our own ideals? Are we leading with Integrity? Are we just falling into a different version of the same trap? Because from my viewpoint, I don't know, it feels like we're becoming a lot like the things we claim to stand against”

It's not the media. I've seen clips of his too where MAGA says "See he's debating a gay man, he doesn't hate gay people." BUT, what he essentially told this young gay conservative is that "You don't have to always define yourself by your sexuality," and on...ergo "don't ask, don't tell." Charlie also said, "But I don't agree with your lifestyle."

I don't consider that "friendly to gays." To tell a young man that he needs to hide his relationships, yet Kirk was all about promoting his relationship with his wife. Also, he thinks being gay is a choice.

Was his statement akin to it's okay for some people to die of gun deaths so we can have the 2nd Amendment taken out of context?

Good grief. Telling someone they don’t have to define themselves by their sexuality is perfectly appropriate and actually good advice. But I wouldn’t expect someone from the party that embraces identity politics to understand that.

So you never hold hands in public with your spouse? If so, you are defining your sexuality.

Your thinking is so damned shallow. Holding hands is a sign of affection and doesn’t define you as a person. You are clearly unable to grasp the depth of Kirk’s comments. Hopefully the young man to whom he was speaking was able to think a bit deeper than you.

So tell us what you think he meant by this...

I don’t have to surmise. Kirk actually told him…..


'I don't think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexual attraction because that's not who you are,' the father-of-two responded.

Chris nodded in agreement, placing a hand on his chest as he replied sympathetically: 'I like to be thought of as a person.'

'You are a complete human being, and I'm sure you treat people well, and you're studying something,' Kirk continued.

'I just think that we have gone a long way in the negative direction in this country where we act as if the most important part of your identity is what you do in the bedroom,' Kirk said.

So, clearly "don't ask, don't tell." You forgot the part where he said he didn't condone the student's "lifestyle." It's fine for Charlie to be straight. He wants people to marry and procreate. He wants this man to procreate or be silent, while furthering the conservative cause.

I have to point out the obvious here. It takes a male and a female to procreate. And if humans cease to procreate, our species becomes extinct. That’s science.

I'm done with the willfully obtuse. We're all on to your hatred and denial though.

Just take the L and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you're finding it "difficult to discern" you're either underinformed or have been misled.

Democrats supported and sponsored a bill condemning ALL political violence: H.Res 746. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/...ion/746/text?s=1&r=1 and which pushed for action and accountability.

Republicans instead pushed for a resolution that ONLY condemns the attack on Charlie Kirk and which strips out anything else that could have been meaningful. Let's compare the Republican bill 719 to the Democrat bill 746

Primary Focus
H.Res.719 Honors Charlie Kirk and condemns his assassination
H.Res.746 Condemns all forms of political violence and dehumanizing rhetoric

Scope of Condemnation
H.Res.719 Specific to one incident involving a conservative figure
H.Res.746 Broad and inclusive, covering violence across the political spectrum

Language
H.Res.719 Memorial-style, focused on Kirk’s legacy
H.Res.746 Institutional and civic, focused on democratic norms and safety

Sponsors
H.Res.719 Republican-led
H.Res.746 Democrat-led (Rep. Marc Veasey and 100+ cosponsors)

Mention of Other Incidents
H.Res.719 None
H.Res.746 Includes attacks on figures from both parties (e.g., Charlie Kirk, Melissa Hortman, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Brett Kavanaugh, Gretchen Whitmer)

Call to Action
H.Res.719 Symbolic tribute
H.Res.746 Urges law enforcement accountability, civil discourse, and bipartisan rejection of violent rhetoric

Tone
H.Res.719 Solemn and commemorative
H.Res.746 Systemic and preventative

So if you think or want to claim that Democrats are weak on this or didn't want to condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk you are dead wrong. If anything it's the Republicans showing weakness in what they passed.

The Democrats' bill contained a stronger condemnation of political violence than the Republicans bill did. Republicans do not get to go around saying Democrats aren't condemning political violence, are somehow wishy washy or not condemning it strongly enough. That's just a straight-up lie. I think the PP who said "it's difficult to discern" actually owes an apology.

Good grief. It is hard to believe that nearly half of the democrats could not bring themselves to vote for a resolution condemning the killing of Charlie Kirk. Amazing.

Ridiculous! Don't "good grief" us! You are being willfully obtuse. Again, the Democrats bill language was STRONGER in condemning political violence than the Republican bill is. That cannot be denied.

I don’t care if you think one RESOLUTION was stronger than the other. It’s not like they could only vote on one of them. Republicans were able to vote for BOTH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is past time for the deification of Charlie Kirk to come to an end. He is dead but life continues for the rest of us.

Never should have happened in the first place. Dude is a racist a-hole.

[Anonymous]

What are the odds that Charlie Kirk’s memorial service this Sunday will devolve into a grievance-filled, vitriolic Trump rally? I say about 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that Charlie Kirk’s memorial service this Sunday will devolve into a grievance-filled, vitriolic Trump rally? I say about 100%.

I guarantee you it will be touching, emotional, and will be a wonderful celebration of a life taken far too early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is past time for the deification of Charlie Kirk to come to an end. He is dead but life continues for the rest of us.

Never should have happened in the first place. Dude is a racist a-hole.

No he wasn’t. Evidence of your allegation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is past time for the deification of Charlie Kirk to come to an end. He is dead but life continues for the rest of us.

Never should have happened in the first place. Dude is a racist a-hole.

No he wasn’t. Evidence of your allegation?

Of course he was.

-everyone who isn't brainwashed MAGA trash

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is past time for the deification of Charlie Kirk to come to an end. He is dead but life continues for the rest of us.

Never should have happened in the first place. Dude is a racist a-hole.

No he wasn’t. Evidence of your allegation?

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is past time for the deification of Charlie Kirk to come to an end. He is dead but life continues for the rest of us.

Never should have happened in the first place. Dude is a racist a-hole.

No he wasn’t. Evidence of your allegation?

MAGA is racist. Kirk was MAGA. Ergo he was racist and was recruiting young potential racists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is past time for the deification of Charlie Kirk to come to an end. He is dead but life continues for the rest of us.

You know who else was killed in their 30s after preaching what the mainstream didn't want to hear?

Yep, you guessed it. Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy

They'll just get vandalized.