• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W#271][W:914] Charlie Kirk Reportedly Shot in Utah: Live Updates

cpwill said:
It's not great clarity, but, it appears to be a variation of the standard "Eagle over American Flag" shirt that is common at these kinds of events.
Click to expand...


roguenuke said:
Can you tell what the image on his shirt is? I can kinda make out a flag, but I swear, my eyesight is so poor the middle part looks a little like a moose to me.
Click to expand...

Found it:

Mens black SZ L lt weight patriotic themed eagle USA flag long sleeve shirt NWO | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Mens black SZ L lt weight patriotic themed eagle USA flag long sleeve shirt NWO at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!
www.ebay.com





 
You can also use the "one illegal immigrant murderer is too many" on trans people. Which Charlie Kirk did just before he was assassinated.
 
Im trying to find the thread.

I'm not really gonna take your word for whatever you think you said. I know you well enough
 
Absentglare said:
Someone doesn’t deserve to die if they run a red light. But if someone gets t-boned when they run a red light, that would be a predictable outcome.

Do you understand the difference?
Click to expand...
In your scenario, someone broke the law and is at fault in traffic and therefore when they're hit, it's kind of on them. AND the person who ran the red light is also responsible for the damage to the other vehicle and any harm done to the drivers and passengers.

In the scenario, you were using this broken analogy to compare it to. A man was assassinated. It was not the man's fault. He was not in the wrong. It wasn't even the bullets fault.

It was the shooter.

I would ask if you understand the difference, but you will claim there isn't one.
 
Callen said:
If it's true. I am not a conspiracy theorist by a long shot but I'll believe nothing coming out of Patel's FBI on this...nothing.
Click to expand...

I mean, if our test for truth becomes "Does it tell me what I want to hear", then, at that point, we have lost access to it.
 

I put this through AI, and they've verified it as being true.
 
Maga really hates having to face up to what they’ve wrought, the type of environment they created.
 
Just as reasonable: it's an attempt to divert attention away from the shooter/ the shooter's motivation, by planting a false clue.
 
The reply’s and views on this thread are true measure of the impact Charlie had on our culture.

The killer believed if Charlie went away so would his words. I see Charlie’s words being magnified.

Unintended consequences.
 
I guess the shirt logo is to draw attention away from the fact the guy is all in black. did i read he had the rifle with him in a crowd before he climbed the stairwell?
 
Did he disagree with same-sex marriage? Yes. As did Presidents Clinton and Obama when hey were first elected. However, he might have believed these relationships were a sin, he never said the government should outlaw being homosexual.

He also did disagree with gender affirming care—but as it related to minors. As some studies show that 13% detransition—
Turban, Loo, et al. (2021), U.S. Transgender Survey (2015)—there is a logical argument that this is the wise decision as the UK is having this discussion themselves. While Kirk didn’t believe the government should fund it, he didn’t advocate for adults to not be able to do so in what I’ve seen.

The role of the non-establishment clause—which doesn’t use the phrase “separation of church and state”—is an area for serious debate. Not sure your issue here where it would be considered hate.

While he advocated for traditional gender roles, he made these arguments to advocate for individuals to follow these norms—not government mandate.

I understand that people may not agree with these stances—I differ in opinion with several. But they are advocating for policies that we largely mainstream until 40 years or so ago. That might mean guides were outdated—but not hateful.

Of course, much of what he advocated which you noted before has been dogma of the Catholic Church for centuries. Although, maybe you likewise support the transgender shooter who went into a Catholic School in August.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Your attack against the Left is about political rhetoric and propaganda.
Click to expand...
What you call an attack, I call an observation of fact.
Do you dispute the left's near constant rants of 'Hitler', 'Nazi', 'Dictator', 'Fascist', 'Authoritarian', and ICE as 'SS storm troopers', etc. etc. etc. actually happened now?

Dans La Lune said:
What does he represent among the right-wing in terms of political rhetoric? For example, I don't listen to ANYONE on the left anywhere NEAR his level of heated rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Since you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the left's near constant rants of 'Hitler', 'Nazi', 'Dictator', 'Fascist', 'Authoritarian', and ICE as 'SS storm troopers', etc. etc. etc. even happened, of course you can't, so blinding are your ideological blinders, apparently.

Dans La Lune said:
You're slamming the left for reacting in a way that is FAR MORE MILD than what Kirk did. How the left has responded is nowhere near as disgusting.
Click to expand...
Of course not, since it seems that you can't even admit to yourself that the left even does any heated rhetoric.

I've quoted only a small list of the left's heated rhetoric and terms, and you can't even admit that.

Whatever 'heated rhetoric' you think Bongino has used, it pales in comparison to the left's, for one, and for another, Bongino routinely cited left sources which did engaged in this heated rhetoric in their own words, so I can understand why you hate him so much for that, and would malign him for doing that, but it is, after all, those left sources' own words.

Dans La Lune said:
How brave.
Click to expand...

Dans La Lune said:
I think the modern right-wing engages in fascism regularly.
Click to expand...
You are free to think whatever baseless and fact less conclusions you want.

Dans La Lune said:
If you don't want to be called a fascist, maybe don't engage in textbook fascism?
Click to expand...
Which instances of this fictitious 'textbook fascism' are you imagining again?

Dans La Lune said:
The innocent people.



You're so self-aware.



Time for another dose of Bongino to cool down the temperature.
Click to expand...
Try something other than trolling in response, eh?
 
KevinKohler said:
Can you tell me what show that was, so I can find the video and hear what he has to say in it's entirety?

I'm having trouble locating it.
Click to expand...

They are discussing another influencer on a podcast who said that she affirmed homosexuality because the Old Testament said to love your neighbor. He points out that the very preceding chapter (which is covering tribal law for ancient Israel) says that if a man has sex with another man, you are to stone him, and says that the lady may want to spend more time in her Bible. He refers generically to God's perfect law on sexuality, which includes both the Old and the New Testament teachings on Homosexuality.

It is not him saying flatly "I think we should start stoning gays", or convincing anyone else to do the same - it is instead people choosing to be offended by the most offensive potential interpretation of what they imagine him to have been saying.

Would he have argued that yes he thinks US law should adopt stoning gays? I don't know - he wasn't unfriendly with Christian Nationalists. But he does not seem to have said so in the piece they are citing.
 
StillServing said:
Did he disagree with same-sex marriage? Yes. As did Presidents Clinton and Obama when hey were first elected. However, he might have believed these relationships were a sin, he never said the government should outlaw being homosexual.
Click to expand...
He wanted Gays stoned to death.
 
There was no angst at all. They blamed antifa and us.
 
More right-wing lies and bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…