September 15, 2025Sep 15 11 minutes ago, JonnyF said: I believe this is the point where it is labelled "hate speech" in order to justify shutting it down. Can you check in your leftists rule book please. I don't have a copy. "Free speech" can be "hate speech" as long as it doesn't advocate violence.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 1 minute ago, WDSmart said: "Free speech" can be "hate speech" as long as it doesn't advocate violence. Perhaps you meant "cannot be" and had a Freudian slip? According to the left, free speech is hate speech if they disagree with it.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 6 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Yes. I understand why you would suggest this. When I was a young child I always suggested stopping the fight with my older brother after I had landed the first 5 unanswered punches. I quickly found it that it doesn't always work like that. 😆 The problem here is that neither the right nor the left is the "older brother." Both are the same, maybe a "twin" brother. My point is that each side, and everyone, should do what they know is right, not justify their actions by saying "He hit me first!"
September 15, 2025Sep 15 1 hour ago, spidermike007 said: Let us not forget who this man was and how polarizing and divisive his rhetoric was. Quote 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 This is true , DEI hires 1 hour ago, spidermike007 said: If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine? – The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022 She's a biological man and yes she should still be in a Russian prison 1 hour ago, spidermike007 said: Quote Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more. – The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023 It's called the knockout game , you need to be the victim of a violent crime 1 hour ago, spidermike007 said: Let's just say it out loud Charlie Kirk was a blazing idiot and an absolute hater. Nope , he was willing to speak the truth and ppl like you can't stand reality
September 15, 2025Sep 15 In order to honor Charlie Kirk's defense of "free speech" we are going to fire/harass anyone having anything negative to say about him. Hmm, sounds reasonable and logical to me. Wait, what?!
September 15, 2025Sep 15 1 minute ago, JonnyF said: 4 minutes ago, WDSmart said: "Free speech" can be "hate speech" as long as it doesn't advocate violence. Perhaps you meant "cannot be" and had a Freudian slip? According to the left, free speech is hate speech if they disagree with it. No slip. "Free speech" includes "hate speech," as long as it does not incite violence or physical harm. In other words, Charlie Kirk could demean Blacks and women, and criticize gays and trans, even suggest they should be treated differently under the law, as long as he didn't incite violence - like recommending all of them be gathered up and hanged.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 16 hours ago, impulse said: So the shoe's on the other foot and the lefties don't like it. Cry harder. You've been doing it to conservatives for 10 years. Yeah, you are so far off base, like the young man that shot Kirk.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 3 minutes ago, WDSmart said: The problem here is that neither the right nor the left is the "older brother." Both are the same, maybe a "twin" brother Irrelevant. 3 minutes ago, WDSmart said: My point is that each side, and everyone, should do what they know is right, not justify their actions by saying "He hit me first!" My point being that you cannot use dirty tactics for a decade and then as soon as the opponent starts using the same tacists, declare them off limits.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 Popular Post 1 hour ago, Airalee said: Did you plagiarize that too? It is part of the public record, a 3-second search would bring up those quotes.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 1 minute ago, WDSmart said: No slip. "Free speech" includes "hate speech," as long as it does not incite violence or physical harm. In other words, Charlie Kirk could demean Blacks and women, and criticize gays and trans, even suggest they should be treated differently under the law, as long as he didn't incite violence - like recommending all of them be gathered up and hanged. How can free speech be hate speech if it does not advocate violence? Your words... 10 minutes ago, WDSmart said: "Free speech" can be "hate speech" as long as it doesn't advocate violence.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 58 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said: Be sure to file that list away in your hate file. As already stated, all taken out of context. That is the chief excuse that lawyers around the world and supporters who are defending the indefensible use, when there's really nothing else to say.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 26 minutes ago, impulse said: One was speaking to thousands of people at a college campus. The other was passing counterfeit money and resisting arrest after pushing a gun into a pregnant woman's belly. With a cocktail of drugs in his blood that would have been fatal to many people. A reasonable jury would have found that that's what killed him. Can you see the difference there? George Floyd was a scumbag. He was not a hero. Marxist Leftist have to be told what to think. They have the Democrats and the compliant media.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 52 minutes ago, impulse said: Was the Reverend Jesse Jackson a racist hater? Because this seems to be worse than any of your alleged Kirk quotes. Or Thomas Sowell? Or the Hodge Twins? I'm not saying that there aren't many other haters out there and I'm not saying that there aren't many other racists out there, some with positions of great influence. I'm just trying to bring context to this Kirk debacle, and I think it's important to recognize who who and what he was.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 Popular Post 18 minutes ago, zepplin said: Is that what a maga idiot says when he has no answers??? Asking for a friend.. When does MAGA not have a common sense answer. I am asking for myself.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 12 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Irrelevant. My point being that you cannot use dirty tactics for a decade and then as soon as the opponent starts using the same tacists, declare them off limits. If your point is that you know these tactics are "dirty," then you should not use them. Both sides are guilty of using them, and it has to stop. Again, I'm not saying stop free speech, or that even hate speech is off limits. I'm saying that if you think a particular speech or action is "dirty," then you should not engage in it.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said: It is part of the public record, a 3-second search would bring up those quotes. The problem with 3 second searches and never really looking at what he said vs what leftists make out he said is that people end up making idiots of themselves and have to issue public apologies like this war mongering idiot as an example.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 Popular Post 4 minutes ago, JonnyF said: How can free speech be hate speech if it does not advocate violence? Your words... My definition of "hate speech" is like me saying I think Charlie Kirk was a piece of <deleted>! And I do. I hated most all of what he stood for and said. I have the right to say that because it is also "free speech." If I suggested he be assassinated, which I didn't and wouldn't, that would not be "free speech."
September 15, 2025Sep 15 4 minutes ago, spidermike007 said: I'm not saying that there aren't many other haters out there and I'm not saying that there aren't many other racists out there, some with positions of great influence. I'm just trying to bring context to this Kirk debacle, and I think it's important to recognize who who and what he was. To a casual observer, it looks more like you're justifying why it was okay to shoot the guy. Or to celebrate someone else shooting the guy.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 The sad fact is, if Tyler Robinson had used his gun to go after students at Utah Valley University instead of just fatally shooting Charlie Kirk, Republicans wouldn't care this much. History proves this... if you allow people to study history.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 Just now, WDSmart said: My definition of "hate speech" is like me saying I think Charlie Kirk was a piece of <deleted>! And I do. I hated most all of what he stood for and said. I have the right to say that because it is also "free speech." If I suggested he be assassinated, which I didn't and wouldn't, that would not be "free speech." Fluff. Again, these are your words. 19 minutes ago, WDSmart said: "Free speech" can be "hate speech" as long as it doesn't advocate violence. Doesn't make sense. So what if it DOES advocate violence? Is it then not hate speech? Maybe just easier to admit you made a typo at this point? 😆 Perhaps you meant "free speech can be hate speech if it advocates violence". That makes sense. Or "free speech cannot be hate speech unless it advocates violence". That makes sense. But what you ACTUALLY wrote makes no sense at all. 😃
September 15, 2025Sep 15 19 minutes ago, Wrwest said: In order to honor Charlie Kirk's defense of "free speech" we are going to fire/harass anyone having anything negative to say about him. Hmm, sounds reasonable and logical to me. Wait, what?! Once again, taken out of the context of the situation. The left can't stomp on the 1st Amendment rights of conservatives for 10+ years, then cry foul when it happens to them.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 11 minutes ago, WDSmart said: If your point is that you know these tactics are "dirty," then you should not use them. Both sides are guilty of using them, and it has to stop. Again, I'm not saying stop free speech, even hate speech is off limits. I'm saying that if you think a particular speech or action is "dirty," then you should not engage in it. Having introduced the dirty tactic, I see no evidence of the left stopping. So why would/should the right?
September 15, 2025Sep 15 7 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said: The sad fact is, if Tyler Robinson had used his gun to go after students at Utah Valley University instead of just fatally shooting Charlie Kirk, Republicans wouldn't care this much. History proves this... if you allow people to study history. And if he had killed Uni students instead, the left wouldn't be laughing as much and making so many TikTok videos celebrating it.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 1 hour ago, amykat said: People who like him are mad he was killed “just for expressing his opinion” (hate speech) but when others “express their opinion” as in maybe they greatly dislike the man, they deserve to be fired from their job … and other consequences??? That makes perfect sense??? its fine to "not like the man" or anybody else for that matter, but celebrating his death online in order to garner a few "likes" or in the case of failing celebs, to boost their career or raise their profile is reprehensible behaviour and needs to be called out, Nobody deserves to be shot, but plenty now deserve to be sacked. Can you not tell the difference?
September 15, 2025Sep 15 46 minutes ago, newbee2022 said: You're captured in your narratives and stereotypes. Think outside the box. Nice descriptive of yourself as one being stuck in a bubble incapable of peering in. One thing is very clear to most of us peering in, is that the left has moved into a state of complete disarray and confusion and are now trying to argue and rationalize their way through the mess that they themselves have chosen to put themselves into. That is exactly where you are now, clearly.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 8 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Fluff. Again, these are your words. Doesn't make sense. So what if it DOES advocate violence? Is it then not hate speech? Maybe just easier to admit you made a typo at this point? 😆 Perhaps you meant "free speech can be hate speech if it advocates violence". That makes sense. Or "free speech cannot be hate speech unless it advocates violence". That makes sense. But what you ACTUALLY wrote makes no sense at all. 😃 No, I typed what I meant to say. "Hate speech" expresses hate. It does not have to advocate violence. If I say "I hate JonnyF", and he is a damn <deleted>, that is hate speech, but that is not advocating violence.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 37 minutes ago, AustinRacing said: Once upon a time USA was proud of its 1st amendment. Ignorant statement by one who lacks any understanding of the 2nd amendment.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 28 minutes ago, JonnyF said: How can free speech be hate speech if it does not advocate violence? Your words... Free speech can be hate speech if it expresses hate. You might say you hate someone without suggesting any violence be used against them.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 43 minutes ago, WDSmart said: "Free speech" can be "hate speech" as long as it doesn't advocate violence. So what if it DOES advocate violence? Is it no longer hate speech?
September 15, 2025Sep 15 13 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Having introduced the dirty tactic, I see no evidence of the left stopping. So why would/should the right? Even if your first sentence above is correct, you, the right, should not use any tactics you consider "dirty." If you do, then you are just as bad as your opponents, and neither one of you deserves to prevail, because then, we'd all just have a "dirty" country.
Create an account or sign in to comment