What made Charlie Kirk a great man?

[Loulit01]

And you guys listen to the twisted sound bites your masters feed you.

So he didn't say what he said?

 

[Hamish Howl]

He was an unbelievable **** and that's what his fans wanted.

 

[noonereal]

All you had to do was to actually listen to him instead of only listening to the sound bites and opinions the left threw out at you.

Are the sound bites AI generated?
Are his quoted remarks someone else's?

 

[noonereal]

So he didn't say what he said?

Of course not.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Says the side who doesn't want to get rid of high crime and would rather have blacks killed at a disproportional rate than their population percentage.

 

[HenryChinaski]

The only good thing I can say about Charlie Kirk is at the end of his life he ended up leaning left on gun violence.

 

[Gardener]

He was a man who deconstructed the arguments of fools.

That doesn't make him a great man, but I admire him for always staying calm while hysterical, brainwashed students tossed out so much bullshit at him. I disagreed with him on many things, but unlike the sheeple he confronted, he could construct a logical argument.

 

[Loulit01]

He was a man who deconstructed the arguments of fools.

That doesn't make him a great man, but I admire him for always staying calm while hysterical, brainwashed students tossed out so much bullshit at him. I disagreed with him on many things, but unlike the sheeple he confronted, he could construct a logical argument.

It's easy to win arguments when you lie and twist logic.

 

[Gardener]

It's easy to win arguments when you lie and twist logic.

How would you know?

You have never won an argument.

 

[Loulit01]

How would you know?

You have never won an argument.

Because I don't lie and twist logic.

 

[Gardener]

Because I don't lie and twist logic.

Ah, so THAT's your excuse.

 

[Pepperdoodle]

No man is great, especially if they lean Left.
Kirk dealt with hateful rhetoric, professional trolls hounded him, he was followed by pariahs, etc.
But even with all of that he did better dealing with the opposition than most of us can in person or online.

 

[noonereal]

He was a man who deconstructed the arguments of fools.

That doesn't make him a great man, but I admire him for always staying calm while hysterical, brainwashed students tossed out so much bullshit at him. I disagreed with him on many things, but unlike the sheeple he confronted, he could construct a logical argument.

That is how he made a living. Good God.

Anyone of those "brainwashed students" could have done the same with 20 years of dally practice.

Ever notice how he never answered the well thought out and researched questions?

 

[Bodi]

He wanted to oppress women... in my book that makes him a ****ing asshole.

 

[NolanVoyd]

No man is great, especially if they lean Left.

Lol.

wau to be divisive.

Kirk dealt with hateful rhetoric,

Kirk lied and spewed hategul rherotic.

professional trolls hounded him,

he was a professional troll.

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

If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024

...Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
– The Charlie Kirk Show,

Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.– Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement

on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025

The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.

– Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded, published on 8 September 2024

The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024

The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024

Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.

– Charlie Kirk social media post, 8 September 2025

Also.....

Kirk did say that it was a “huge mistake” to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As the National Archives explains, the law “prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal.”

 

[tshade]

You don't think Charlie Kirk was bad?

Some of what he said I think was harmful to the nation, sure

 

[Loulit01]

Some of what he said I think was harmful to the nation, sure

Do you think Charlie Kirk was a great man?

 

[tshade]

Do you think Charlie Kirk was a great man?

"Great" in the sense of "famous", of course.....

 

[Lursa]

The only thing in question here is did Obama honor him. Obviously he did. That is not a matter up for discussion, it is a fact. You seem to want to skirt around that fact. I can see why since you have been proven wrong in such a humiliatingly way. Nothing else that you have posted here has any relevance to the fact that you were proven wrong. At least be big enough to admit it. I have no interest in jumping through your hoops just because you want to divert attention away from the facts. And BTW, you still have no point.

View attachment 67589412

No...that wasnt even the question. It was if Kirk should be honored by the things I listed (and none of them was visiting the WH...since he's dead ) at the expense of such rhetoric and taxpayer $$.

You then named Bowe Bergdahl as an example of someone honored at the WH...and then showed his parents. So...he wasnt at the WH... the "honor" that he was given was before his desertion was investigated.

Now...let's see you connect the dots of my original question back to Kirk from YOUR introduction out of the blue of someone that was charged as a deserter. Let's see you map it out LMAO...in your original post, you named Bergdahl...and then wrote not

Bringing Bowe Bergdahl to the White House is an example of wasting taxpayer money, not Charlie Kirk.

There's been nothing rational in your posts regarding the nonsense re: your volunteering Bergdahl...in an example that fails. As you continually hide from the truth of his "honor" that was turned to dishonor



Was your intent to connect him to Kirk also eventually being dishonored? LOL Your "intent" was to try and distance yourself from your failure to address the OP's question in the OP post.

 

[Loulit01]

"Great" in the sense of "famous", of course.....

Famous and great are not synonyms but I'll let you off the hook. I think I know what you're trying really hard not to say.

 

[tshade]

Famous and great are not synonyms but I'll let you off the hook. I think I know what you're trying really hard not to say.

Look at a history book--------great figures who have changed history are not always "good"..............................when discussing people, 'great' often implies a combination of fame, talent, and influence.

(but, I'll "let you off the hook")

1. Adolf Hitler - Leader of Nazi Germany, responsible for the Holocaust and World War II atrocities.
2. Joseph Stalin - Soviet leader known for his brutal regime, purges, and widespread famine.
3. Genghis Khan - Mongol conqueror whose campaigns resulted in millions of deaths and destruction.
4. Pol Pot - Cambodian leader who led the Khmer Rouge, causing the deaths of approximately 1.7 million people.
5. Leopold II of Belgium - His exploitation of the Congo Free State led to millions of deaths and severe human rights abuses.
6. Mao Zedong - Chinese leader whose policies, including the Great Leap Forward, resulted in mass starvation and suffering.

 

[----------]

No...that wasnt even the question. It was if Kirk should be honored by the things I listed (and none of them was visiting the WH...since he's dead ) at the expense of such rhetoric and taxpayer $$.

You then named Bowe Bergdahl as an example of someone honored at the WH...and then showed his parents. So...he wasnt at the WH... the "honor" that he was given was before his desertion was investigated.

Now...let's see you connect the dots of my original question back to Kirk from YOUR introduction out of the blue of someone that was charged as a deserter. Let's see you map it out LMAO...in your original post, you named Bergdahl...and then wrote not


There's been nothing rational in your posts regarding the nonsense re: your volunteering Bergdahl...in an example that fails. As you continually hide from the truth of his "honor" that was turned to dishonor

View attachment 67589464

Was your intent to connect him to Kirk also eventually being dishonored? LOL Your "intent" was to try and distance yourself from your failure to address the OP's question in the OP post.

You keep spinning and dodging. You were proven wrong yet you seem to not want to acknowledge it. I guess I can understand why because it makes you look uninformed since you only learned of this when I brought it up to you yesterday. Now after a few Googles you seem to think you are the resident expert on the matter.

I have been crystal clear about the fact that I want the OP to define what he thinks a great man looks likes so that I might address his question. It wasn't a "failure", it was a choice. Until that happens, I am in a holding pattern. How many times do I have to repeat that?

So, I ask you yet again, did Obama honor Bergdahl or not? A simple yes or no will do. Are you up to it?

 

[Lursa]

Bringing Bowe Bergdahl to the White House is an example of wasting taxpayer money, not Charlie Kirk.

You keep spinning and dodging. You were proven wrong yet you seem to not want to acknowledge it.

No, that's you The truth was posted in black and white...you did it...and then after I pointed out your mistake, you stopped posting the unfortunate truth:

I guess I can understand why because it makes you look uninformed since you only learned of this when I brought it up to you yesterday. Now after a few Googles you seem to think you are the resident expert on the matter.

I guess I can understand" why you dont want to admit it...it's become your distraction and my cheeky role as teacher grading your attempts as you go

If you arent embarrassed by preferring not to understand that things change with new information...like an honoree being dishonored after an investigation (like an innocent person being found guilty) well, I cant help with that level of re-education for you. It's a matter of developing your thought processes.

I have been crystal clear about the fact that I want the OP to define what he thinks a great man looks likes so that I might address his question. It wasn't a "failure", it was a choice. Until that happens, I am in a holding pattern. How many times do I have to repeat that?

Excellent! When will you answer this ?

Oh I think YOU are getting it. A "great man" tag largely relies on one's personal opinion, which the OP wasn't willing to share.

That's why I was trying to establish what his definition of what a great man was, so that I could answer him accordingly. Savvy?

You just wrote it, holy shit : A "great man" tag largely relies on one's personal opinion."

Why would your personal opinion depend on his?

 

[----------]

No, that's you The truth was posted in black and white...you did it...and then after I pointed out your mistake, you stopped posting the unfortunate truth:


View attachment 67589470



I guess I can understand" why you dont want to admit it...it's become your distraction and my cheeky role as teacher grading your attempts as you go

If you arent embarrassed by preferring not to understand that things change with new information...like an honoree being dishonored after an investigation (like an innocent person being found guilty) well, I cant help with that level of re-education for you. It's a matter of developing your thought processes.




Excellent! When will you answer this ?


You just wrote it, holy shit : A "great man" tag largely relies on one's personal opinion."

Why would your personal opinion depend on his?

Why do you keep dodging my question? You are just posting nonsense at this point. It must be embarrassing for you.

So did Obama honor him or not?

Maybe the student has become the teacher?

 

[Lursa]

Why do you keep dodging my question? You are just posting nonsense at this point. It must be embarrassing for you.

So did Obama honor him or not?

Maybe the student has become the teacher?

View attachment 67589471

He did not. Again, if you cant understand how something can happen, and then change, I cant help you. Found innocent, then guilty on appeal...is that a concept you understand? This is similar. So...is the innocent person still innocent? Or guilty? Is the person honored, or dishonored?

And MY source says yours is wrong...so? Why should I accept yours? From post 356:

Here's "my" AI sourced response:

"President Barack Obama did not formally "honor" Bowe Bergdahl in the sense of awarding him a medal or celebrating his military service. However, he did publicly announce Bergdahl’s release from Taliban captivity in May 2014 with a tone of relief and support.​

​

In a White House Rose Garden statement, Obama stood alongside Bergdahl’s parents and said:​

“The United States of America does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind.”​

This announcement was initially framed as a positive moment, emphasizing the safe return of an American soldier after nearly five years in captivity​

​

However, controversy quickly followed. Critics questioned the decision to exchange five Taliban detainees for Bergdahl and raised concerns about the circumstances of his disappearance, which some fellow soldiers described as desertion​

So while Obama acknowledged Bergdahl’s return and expressed support for his family, the administration did not bestow any formal honors on him, and the situation became politically contentious soon after."​

AI link source 1

AI link source 2

Lets see the links for your AI source?