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

[jaeger19]

Did I not write that the far right are not angels?

Lmao. The right aren’t angels “ but those libs”” yada yada yada.


There is FAR more to criticize the right about than the liberals.
Particularly the actions of the right wing president.

When I see you give objective commentary?
Then I’ll view your opinion as credible

 

[RF667799]

Here it is:

“And it says, by the way, Ms. Rachel, might want to crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying. So, Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”​

​

Viral Claims About Charlie Kirk's Words - FactCheck.org

Since the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10, social media users have shared posts showing, quoting or paraphrasing remarks the posts attribute to the conservative activist. Many readers have asked us to provide the facts on whether Kirk, the founder of the youth political group Turning...

www.factcheck.org

They were discussing how the Lord wants us to treat other people. I dont know what King apologized about but I'm presenting proof that he endorsed a dehumanizing view of gays...and one of violence as well.

He was very clear in his acceptance of that law...calling it perfect. He did use it as an illustration and it also illustrated his opinion on "his" value of gays. He stayed on topic nicely.

From your source: After backlash from Kirk supporters, the author Stephen King, who had posted on X on Sept. 11 that Kirk had “advocated stoning gays to death,” retracted his claim and apologized. King said, “What [Kirk] actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.”

His point being the hazards of cherry picking Bible quotes to try to make a theological point. I'm not going to argue it with you. You seem to have your mind made up. In full context, it's been explained many times in the past week or so. That Stephen King initially made the same claim as you but retracted it and apologized when examining the matter in detail, speaks volumes. Stephen King is hardly an apologist for the GOP or the right, but I suspect he does know a thing or two about how words communicate thoughts and ideas.

 

[Lursa]

From your source: After backlash from Kirk supporters, the author Stephen King, who had posted on X on Sept. 11 that Kirk had “advocated stoning gays to death,” retracted his claim and apologized. King said, “What [Kirk] actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.”

His point being the hazards of cherry picking Bible quotes to try to make a theological point. I'm not going to argue it with you. You seem to have your mind made up. In full context, it's been explained many times in the past week or so. That Stephen King initially made the same claim as you but retracted it and apologized when examining the matter in detail, speaks volumes. Stephen King is hardly an apologist for the GOP or the right, but I suspect he does know a thing or two about how words communicate thoughts and ideas.

I dont care what SK thought. Please respond to my post.

Are you claiming Kirk didnt believe in the one he used? It's not like his comment there existed in a vacuum of his cumulative messaging.

 

[jpn]

I disagree but I do appreciate you not calling Trump Hitler and a fascist.
I believe Trumps “authoritarian moves” as you call them are warranted. Stopping violent crime in our country is a must. It’s been going on far too long and communities have become numb to it.
The border lockdown has been a success. DC has been a success. Memphis is next up.

How silly. As if people in military uniforms picking up trash in front of tourist sites in blue cities has anything to do with actual police work.

Other authoritarian moves:

Intimidate intelligence analysts into only producing reports in your political favor.
Don’t like cost estimates for your tax plan? Invent your own.
Don’t want to be bothered with real climate data you don't like? Scrub government websites of underlying data.
Bully history museums into scrubbing any mention of your impeachments.
Intimidate data collection agencies into not reporting bad data by firing the head of BLS because he did not like the latest jobs report showing that the economy isn’t doing as well as he claims it is. Declare the numbers “phony.” When asked for proof, he arrogantly declared that it was “my opinion.”
Impose tariffs, which is a power Constitutionally given to Congress.
Fire government employees if they aren't loyal to him personally. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/16/trump-civil-service-loyalty-firings/>
Firing FBI agents who were assigned to the Russia investigation, irrespective of the fact that they were assigned to it.
Extorting the media, universities, and law firms.
Disregarding congressionally appropriated spending.
Ignoring the law requiring TikTok to divest from its Chinese ownership or be banned due to urgent security reasons, which he himself used to express. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that law. Doesn't matter. He got a big donation from one of TikTok's major investors. End of story.
Making a show of ignoring due process in deportations.

 

[Trump]

How silly. As if people in military uniforms picking up trash in front of tourist sites in blue cities has anything to do with actual police work.

Other authoritarian moves:

Intimidate intelligence analysts into only producing reports in your political favor.
Don’t like cost estimates for your tax plan? Invent your own.
Don’t want to be bothered with real climate data you don't like? Scrub government websites of underlying data.
Bully history museums into scrubbing any mention of your impeachments.
Intimidate data collection agencies into not reporting bad data by firing the head of BLS because he did not like the latest jobs report showing that the economy isn’t doing as well as he claims it is. Declare the numbers “phony.” When asked for proof, he arrogantly declared that it was “my opinion.”
Impose tariffs, which is a power Constitutionally given to Congress.
Fire government employees if they aren't loyal to him personally. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/16/trump-civil-service-loyalty-firings/>
Firing FBI agents who were assigned to the Russia investigation, irrespective of the fact that they were assigned to it.
Extorting the media, universities, and law firms.
Disregarding congressionally appropriated spending.
Ignoring the law requiring TikTok to divest from its Chinese ownership or be banned due to urgent security reasons, which he himself used to express. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that law. Doesn't matter. He got a big donation from one of TikTok's major investors. End of story.
Making a show of ignoring due process in deportations.

The border is closed and the killing stopped in DC. Do you disagree?

 

[jpn]

So, unlike Stephen King, who publicly withdrew his advocacy of the false notion that Kirk had advocated stoning gays, you are joining Hatuey and Dairyair in supporting that falsehood. All three of you are just making crap up about Kirk to deflect from the fact that a Leftie is guilty of this heinous act, and from the way it shows Mad Libs' total indifference to discourse.

I guess your specialty is putting words in other people's mouths and then expressing faux shock and horror.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I gave one example, proving you wrong that I'm not aware.

You gave me an example of a quote attributed to Kirk from a lefty source with no context and you have no idea when, where, or IF it was even said.

Here's your chance... produce some video or some audio of that quote in full context and I'll be more than happy to debate you about it. But I'm guessing you can't do that because, first of all, you have no idea where it came from and, most of all, like I've said, your knowledge of Charlie Kirk and Turning Point is exclusively limited to what your lefty sources have told you to think about him.

I'll wait...

 

[Lursa]

You gave me an example of a quote attributed to Kirk from a lefty source with no context and you have no idea when, where, or IF it was even said.

Here's your chance... produce some video or some audio of that quote in full context and I'll be more than happy to debate you about it. But I'm guessing you can't do that because, first of all, you have no idea where it came from and, most of all, like I've said, your knowledge of Charlie Kirk and Turning Point is exclusively limited to what your lefty sources have told you to think about him.

I'll wait...

I dont have to debate anything. You are trying to tell me what I'm familiar with. If I "go out and find it now" it has no bearing on what I knew when he was shot.

Man...you really didnt think that thru, did you? MAGA "logic"

 

[RF667799]

I dont care what SK thought. Please respond to my post.

Are you claiming Kirk didnt believe in the one he used? It's not like his comment there existed in a vacuum of his cumulative messaging.

I responded to your post, and I'm done.

 

[Lursa]

I responded to your post, and I'm done.

LOL. I laugh because if I'd ever tried to use such a left-leaning source, it would have been dismissed out of hand as "delusional", "too extreme," "hates TACO," etc. but because it's something that supports a right-leaning agenda...it's "acceptable."

In any case, ok.

 

[RF667799]

LOL. I laugh because if I'd ever tried to use such a left-leaning source, it would have been dismissed out of hand as "delusional", "too extreme," "hates TACO," etc. but because it's something that supports a right-leaning agenda...it's "acceptable."

In any case, ok.

Yeah? That's kinda what Kirk did in debating that person in the video. Presented her with something from her own source with which she wouldn't agree, to point out the cherry picking.

It is funny, and the joke's on you now.

 

[Lursa]

Yeah? That's kinda what Kirk did in debating that person in the video. Presented her with something from her own source with which she wouldn't agree, to point out the cherry picking.

It is funny, and the joke's on you now.

Except that he did believe in it...which is the point.

"They were discussing how the Lord wants us to treat other people. I dont know what King apologized about but I'm presenting proof that he endorsed a dehumanizing view of gays...and one of violence as well.​

He was very clear in his acceptance of that law...calling it perfect. He did use it as an illustration and it also illustrated his opinion on "his" value of gays. He stayed on topic nicely."​

​

"Are you claiming Kirk didnt believe in the one he used? It's not like his comment there existed in a vacuum of his cumulative messaging."​

 

[RF667799]

Except that he did believe in it...which is the point.

Apparently, his debate opponent believed as well until it became inconvenient. Why Charlie Kirk doesn't literally accept the old laws is a deeper matter.
Are you a Christian?

 

[Lursa]

Apparently, his debate opponent believed as well until it became inconvenient. Why Charlie Kirk doesn't literally accept the old laws is a deeper matter.
Are you a Christian?

See above.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I dont have to debate anything. You are trying to tell me what I'm familiar with. If I "go out and find it now" it has no bearing on what I knew when he was shot.

Man...you really didnt think that thru, did you? MAGA "logic"

I'm glad you highlighted the "what I'm familiar with" part because it proves even more what I have said from the beginning of this exchange.

You're knowledge of Charlie Kirk and Turning Point is exclusively limited to what you have been told to believe by people who are opposed to him politically. You haven't spent a tenth of a second of your entire life listening to the man in his own words yet you jump into this thread like you are some kind of authority and even go so far as to suggest that his murder was somehow justified?

Your opinion is meaningless.

 

[Lursa]

I'm glad you highlighted the "what I'm familiar with" part because it proves even more what I have said from the beginning of this exchange.

You're knowledge of Charlie Kirk and Turning Point is exclusively limited to what you have been told to believe by people who are opposed to him politically. You haven't spent a tenth of a second of your entire life listening to the man in his own words yet you jump into this thread like you are some kind of authority and even go so far as to suggest that his murder was somehow justified?

Your opinion is meaningless.

Looks at those dots...still not connected.

And no, you still cant 'tell' me what I know and dont. Such a post is irrational.

 

[RF667799]

See above.

Yeah, you extended your post quite a bit after I already responded.

They were discussing how the Lord wants us to treat other people.

Is that what they were debating?

I'm presenting proof that he endorsed a dehumanizing view of gays...and one of violence as well.

You've presented your opinion.

He was very clear in his acceptance of that law...calling it perfect.

How is it perfect when it includes a contradiction? His opponent was presenting the Bible as proof of her point, standing on its perfection.

He did use it as an illustration and it also illustrated his opinion on "his" value of gays. He stayed on topic nicely."

Your opinion again.

"Are you claiming Kirk didnt believe in the one he used? It's not like his comment there existed in a vacuum of his cumulative messaging."

I do indeed claim that he didn't believe in stoning gays. At least from what I've seen. But you say there is supporting evidence in other things he said? They will have to be pretty specific, and not just more twisting.

Are you a Christian?

 

[Desert Storm]

ABC has suspended Jimmy Kimmel

ABC Pulls ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ Indefinitely After Host’s Charlie Kirk Comments

Nexstar, one of the biggest owners o US f TV stations in, said will pre-empt Jimmy Kimmel's late night show due to the host's Charlie Kirk remarks

variety.com

 

[Lursa]

Yeah, you extended your post quite a bit after I already responded.



Is that what they were debating?



You've presented your opinion.



How is it perfect when it includes a contradiction? His opponent was presenting the Bible as proof of her point, standing on its perfection.


Your opinion again.



I do indeed claim that he didn't believe in stoning gays. At least from what I've seen. But you say there is supporting evidence in other things he said? They will have to be pretty specific, and not just more twisting.

Are you a Christian?

His point was valid in that she should take the meaning as a whole. That if she was accepting one, then she should accept the other...he used the one about stoning gays in his exemplifying God's Perfect Law.

And I said that I took him at his (Kirk's word). That the statement about stoning gays was also part of God's Perfect Law.

“She’s not totally wrong,” Kirk said. “The first part is Deuteronomy 6:3–5. The second part is Leviticus 19. So you love God, so you must love his law. How do you love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth, not by confirming or affirming their sin.”​

​

He continued: “And it says, by the way, Ms. Rachel, might want to crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying. So, Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” link​

​

My statements above the quote are my point...and that it was an example of Kirk's dehumanizing gays...and endorsing violence. (Again, not my words, his, in his affirming God's perfect law.)

 

[RF667799]

His point was valid in that she should take the meaning as a whole. That if she was accepting one, then she should accept the other...he used the one about stoning gays in his exemplifying God's Perfect Law.

And I said that I took him at his (Kirk's word). That the statement about stoning gays was also part of God's Perfect Law.

“She’s not totally wrong,” Kirk said. “The first part is Deuteronomy 6:3–5. The second part is Leviticus 19. So you love God, so you must love his law. How do you love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth, not by confirming or affirming their sin.”​

​

He continued: “And it says, by the way, Ms. Rachel, might want to crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying. So, Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” link​

​

My statements above the quote are my point...and that it was an example of Kirk's dehumanizing gays...and endorsing violence. (Again, not my words, his, in his affirming God's perfect law.)

You're just repeating the conclusion you've drawn from an incomplete video at this point. You also again missed answering a question I've repeated twice now. I was right earlier in not wanting to argue this with you. I usually respect your argumentative ability, but in this you are just repeating your initial claim over and over.

 

[Hamish Howl]

ABC has suspended Jimmy Kimmel

ABC Pulls ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ Indefinitely After Host’s Charlie Kirk Comments

Nexstar, one of the biggest owners o US f TV stations in, said will pre-empt Jimmy Kimmel's late night show due to the host's Charlie Kirk remarks

variety.com

Under threat from the chief of the FCC, who had a sad about Kimmel's words.

 

[trixare4kids]

Under threat from the chief of the FCC, who had a sad about Kimmel's words.

An assassin had a sad over another words, and he's dead.

Kimmel's still here.
Maybe some of his mourners should start a GoFund for a guy who gets to go home to his wife and kids tonight.

 

[Hamish Howl]

A assassin had a sad over another words, and he's dead.

Kimmel's still here.
Maybe some should start a GoFund for a guy who gets to go home to his wife and kids tonight.

As I say, we know you hate the first amendment with a passion.

 

[trixare4kids]

As I say, we know you hate the first amendment with a passion.

This is not a first amendment issue, and I think we all know you're baiting.

 

[jpn]

The border is closed and the killing stopped in DC. Do you disagree?

Borders: Often relying on illegal methods, Trump has succeeded in drastically reducing the number of migrant encounters at the southern border. In addition to the lawlessness, the effects on our economy will largely be to our disadvantage. Trump promised to lower costs; this and his tariffs are doing the opposite. The "crisis" was always overblown to appeal to, among others, racists and white nationalists.

Killing: It appears that placing armed troops on our streets does have the effect of reducing violent crime. Is this a permanent solution? What is the long-term plan?