Charlie Kirk Attacks Anti-gay MAGA Trump Supporter

[hooligan]

Everyone is racist to a degree, including blacks.

I sincerely hope what you actually meant to say here is "Anyone can be..." and not really "Everyone is...".

I can assure you, not everyone is racist "to a degree".

 

[Showtime586]

I think it is important for the left to understand just who the real Charlie Kirk actually was instead of just listening to the left's sound bite propaganda on subjects where they twist his words and take him out of context. If Tyler Robinson had known the truth instead of the lies, he may have never done what he did. I actually took this clip out of another thread where the posted video was 58 minutes long and I time stamped it to a point where you can just watch a couple of minutes as I know many, including myself, just don't have the time or the desire to watch a 58 minute video. In this clip, Charlie Kirk denounces a far right wing strongly anti-gay Trump supporter. Worth the watch, unless you don't want to know who the real Charlie Kirk was and are fine with the propaganda the left have fed you.

Was this BEFORE or after Charlie Kirk said that Biden should be executed?

 

[Showtime586]

Can you believe that this Charlie Kirk ass thought the Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake? What a despicable human being. At least we’ll never have to hear more of his drivel about the Civil Rights Act.

Thank you @Moderate Right for helping to highlight who Charlie Kirk really was by creating this opportunity to discuss his terrible views on civil rights.

Go easy on @Moderate Right. I inadvertently "triggered" him this morning as he wasted his time and mine trying to convince me what an outstanding person Kirk was.

 

[Showtime586]

WHO is Charlie Kirk and how much longer will we have Charlie Kirk threads.


View attachment 67590440

Charlie Kirk was a Right Wing podcaster who figured out early on how to profit from being controversial and making very "questionable" comments.
Kirk also enjoyed debating college kids who have little in the way of life experiences. It made him look "big and smart" to his followers.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Was this BEFORE or after Charlie Kirk said that Biden should be executed?

Out of context. Out if context. Nananana!

 

[Showtime586]

Out of context. Out if context. Nananana!

Magas do the best that they can with the limited resources that they posess.

 

[NotreDame]

Likewise I can assuredly say the following:

1. Humans are not perfect
2. Humans are flawed
3. Humans, since they are flawed, not perfect, cannot create anything that is perfect and/or flawless
4. Humans create humans.
5. Humans are created by humans.
6. Charlie Kirk was a human created by humans.
Conclusion: Charlie Kirk isn’t flawless or absent imperfections.

Yes but so what?

 

[NotreDame]

I wouldn't agree with that characterization. The fact is, Charlie Kirk was against homosexuality and gay marriage but was also for love, forgiveness, and some level of acceptance (much like the Catholic Church now beleives). I think that was made clear in the video where he tells the gay hater that he really isn't the conservative he thinks he is. Kirk believed that what happens behind closed doors isn't the business of others and that we shouldn't hate gays and ex-communicate them from society just because they are gay.

Kirk is documented as telling homosexual Republican he disapproves of their same sex behaviors but that “politics is about addition and multiplication” and the homosexual Republican adhered to “conservative” views regarding immigration, taxes, government and economy.

Might Kirk have consistently, associated with lesbians and homosexuals congenially, perhaps as friends such that he hung out with them in some routine manner? Yes, but I’ve never denied this to have occurred or couldn’t have transpired.

What I did say and write is the context of Kirk welcoming gay conservatives into the Republican Party doesn’t convey a broader and more general association, friendship, with them outside the context of politics.

However, I actually appreciate the fact that you're trying to look at all this without partisan blinders on, instead of just forming opinions based on misleading propaganda.

Thank you for the kind words. I’m not partisan and I refuse to view the word through a partisan lens, choosing instead to examine the evidence, reasoning, facts, and draw my own conclusions. Which routinely results in disagreements here and elsewhere with Republicans, Democrats, MAGA, etc, and other occasions in agreement with them.

I’ve immersed myself with Kirk’s views to arrive at an informed perspective of Kirk based upon what I’ve heard him say and observed how he’s acted. I find Kirk to be consistent with every human being that’s existed, he wasn’t perfect, he made some inflammatory and odious remarks, while many times he was respectful, thoughtful, compassionate, expressed wisdom and sound logic.

An issue I have with some of the Left, pertaining to Kirk, is their remarks infer a requirement of perfection of people, more specifically a perfection that aligns with their beliefs and notions of what shouldn’t be said. It’s the same incoherent logic that “woke”’was based upon, promoting Democrats and some leftists, such as Obama, Maher, to assert the logic was so tenuous that it is impossibly rational.

Kirk wasn’t the boogey man, evil, or wicked as some have expressed.

 

[NotreDame]

I'm saying the left have twisted his words, taken him out of context, and outright lied about many of the things Kirk has said to further their own hateful propaganda. Yes, Kirk believed what was in the bible (not that we should stone gays to death) and Christianity but he also lived the so called Christian life as Jesus would have. By the way, FYI, I'm not religious myself but I do see things for the way that they are.

Well you aren’t wrong, many of his detractors that I’ve encountered have yet to 1.) seek the original comment(s) by Kirk that ostensibly is insensitive or
odious or inflammatory to understand the context (for examine a du jour of the Kirk detractors is to say Kirk approved or endorsed stoning of homosexuals but his actual statement, which I did find in a video, doesn’t remotely come close to saying this at all 2.) can’t be bothered to research and watch/listen to more of his shows/speeches/talks, to acquire a more wide and broad evidentiary basis to evaluate him as opposed to the selective lines from CNN, MSNBC, Jesse Watters, NewsMax and 3.) I lament that the measure of a person presently isn’t determined by the totality of how they lived and the totality of what they said but 45 second sound bytes.

I know enough of Kirk to confidently conclude Kirk isn’t the boogey man some of the Left have portrayed.