Here's proof.

 

 

And yet the vile dystopian extremist forces of the shambolic Trump (best friend of Epstein) regime and those trying to whitewash how obnoxious and hateful Kirk REALLY was are trying to CANCEL anyone (getting them fired, etc.) who just shows and opines about EXACTLY what Kirk said in his life. Also they're trying (and largely succeeding) in making a person who was extremely far away from being a saint into a kind of magalicious (sic) martyr-saint. The hypocristy is stunning.

That is disgusting and even some right wingers like Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz get that.

 

He was Trumps future favorite president candidate ! Can’t be that bad? 

 

I guess him and Carlson comes up as two of the same, making a carrier making a radical living creating content and debates people want to hear, and within there is the problem. Not Kirk, but the audience who continue to cheer on those who understand how to use the masses for their own benefits 

Perhaps the turmoil in the USA will subside slightly when the FBI Investigates beyond the rooftop suspect.... 

20 minutes ago, CANSIAM said:

Perhaps the turmoil in the USA will subside slightly when the FBI Investigates beyond the rooftop suspect.... 

Give it up. You can't compete with the right when it comes to conspiracy theories. There just isn't the audience for it.

No, he wasn't a horrible person just because his politics differ from yours. 

 

Its entirely possible for people to have different beliefs without making them 'horrible'... to state such a thing implies the person making such a statement themself is somewhat distasteful themself.

 

Additionally, only the dim-witted are inclined to make such a sweeping statement of a person who has debated many topics, surely we, you, others, don't disagree with everything Charlie Kirk debated - many of his opinions were sound, others wholly objectionable. 

 

This idea that you are either 'with him' or 'against him' and that makes him 'good' or 'bad' (horrible) is fundamentally flawed and intellectually dishonest.

 

 

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

No, he wasn't a horrible person just because his politics differ from yours. 

 

Its entirely possible for people to have different beliefs without making them 'horrible'... to state such a thing implies the person making such a statement themself is somewhat distasteful themself.

 

Additionally, only the dim-witted are inclined to make such a sweeping statement of a person who has debated many topics, surely we, you, others, don't disagree with everything Charlie Kirk debated - many of his opinions were sound, others wholly objectionable. 

 

This idea that you are either 'with him' or 'against him' and that makes him 'good' or 'bad' (horrible) is fundamentally flawed and intellectually dishonest.

 

 

 

Did you see the evidences? Are they real speeches and quotes form the Kirk? 

 

What do you see we do not? 

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

No, he wasn't a horrible person just because his politics differ from yours. 

 

Its entirely possible for people to have different beliefs without making them 'horrible'... to state such a thing implies the person making such a statement themself is somewhat distasteful themself.

 

Additionally, only the dim-witted are inclined to make such a sweeping statement of a person who has debated many topics, surely we, you, others, don't disagree with everything Charlie Kirk debated - many of his opinions were sound, others wholly objectionable. 

 

This idea that you are either 'with him' or 'against him' and that makes him 'good' or 'bad' (horrible) is fundamentally flawed and intellectually dishonest.

 

 

Any beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are? Any insults, no matter how low? Any lies, no matter how blatant?

to the title ... I'd say it takes one to know one, but that would be wrong also.

 

I think you've reached a new, if that was even possible.  

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

to the title ... I'd say it takes one to know one, but that would be wrong also.

 

I think you've reached a new, if that was even possible.  

By your reasoning, Charlie Kirk's insults of the assassinated Martin Luther King put him right down there with Jingthing.

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

No, he wasn't a horrible person just because his politics differ from yours. 

 

Its entirely possible for people to have different beliefs without making them 'horrible'... to state such a thing implies the person making such a statement themself is somewhat distasteful themself.

 

Additionally, only the dim-witted are inclined to make such a sweeping statement of a person who has debated many topics, surely we, you, others, don't disagree with everything Charlie Kirk debated - many of his opinions were sound, others wholly objectionable. 

 

This idea that you are either 'with him' or 'against him' and that makes him 'good' or 'bad' (horrible) is fundamentally flawed and intellectually dishonest.

 

Spot on, and it seems all the left knows is hate and name calling.   There are no mirrors in his house.

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Did you see the evidences? Are they real speeches and quotes form the Kirk? 

 

What do you see we do not? 

 

Charlie Kirk has participated in hundreds of debates, consistently inviting polite discussion - even from those who are openly rude to him. On numerous occasions, he has gone out of his way to protect opposing participants from verbal attacks by the audience, emphasising that everyone has the right to voice and defend their viewpoints.

 

His guiding principle has always been the promotion of discussion. Without open dialogue, understanding is impossible. The very essence of debate is to confront differing perspectives respectfully, not to vilify those who hold them.

 

It is, therefore, fundamentally flawed to label someone as a “horrible person” simply because others disagree with them.

 

There is no credible evidence to suggest that Charlie Kirk is inherently cruel or malicious. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that he engages with sensitive topics politely. His arguments may be controversial or disagreeable to some, but they do not demonstrate personal nastiness that would justify such extreme characterisation.

 

Being divisive or holding unpopular opinions does not equate to being horrible - it simply reflects the reality that not everyone will agree with one’s perspective. Debate is not about personal animosity; it is about the exchange of ideas.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Any beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are? Any insults, no matter how low? Any lies, no matter how blatant?

 

Provide verifiable evidence where Charlie Kirk has personally insulted anyone in any of his debates.

 

He presents his opinions and supports them with researched facts - so if someone claims his statistics or assertions are false, they should provide verifiable proof.

 

Simply disagreeing with his viewpoints is not sufficient to label him as malicious or dishonest.

 

 

I am not seeking to defend Charlie Kirk’s opinions - I disagree with many of them myself - but I do want to call out the unnecessary nastiness and personal attacks directed at him solely because people disagree with his perspective. Criticism of ideas is valid; character assassination without evidence is not.

 

 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Provide verifiable evidence where Charlie Kirk has personally insulted anyone in any of his debates.

 

He presents his opinions and supports them with researched facts - so if someone claims his statistics or assertions are false, they should provide verifiable proof.

 

Simply disagreeing with his viewpoints is not sufficient to label him as malicious or dishonest.

 

 

I am not seeking to defend Charlie Kirk’s opinions - I disagree with many of them myself - but I do want to call out the unnecessary nastiness and personal attacks directed at him solely because people disagree with his perspective. Criticism of ideas is valid; character assassination without evidence is not.

 

 

Do you mean people he personally was engaged with in his debates or public figures that he talked about?

Youtube CityCrusher has a hilarious vid about the prevailing fawning over Charlie Kirk (note "refusing to mourn" is not synonymous with gloating over an assassination):

 

 

Just taking, for example, Charlie Kirk’s stance on affirmative action. The video circulated by JT selectively cherry-picks “sound bites” that, on first viewing, may appear racist or bigoted. Yet, upon closer examination of his full arguments, there is substantive reasoning behind his position.

 

Kirk’s central point revolves around the principle of meritocracy. In fields where competence can be a matter of life and death- such as piloting an aircraft or performing surgery - positions should be earned solely on skill, experience, and ability.

 

Suggesting that companies or institutions fill a set number of positions based on demographic criteria - whether race, gender, or ethnicity - risks undermining meritocracy. This approach can result in highly qualified individuals being overlooked in favour of meeting quotas, which may compromise performance in critical roles.

 

Ultimately, when we entrust our lives to professionals, we want confidence that they are chosen for their capabilities and expertise, not because they benefited from preferential treatment. Affirmative action, while aiming to correct historical inequities, raises difficult questions about balancing diversity goals with ensuring the most qualified individuals occupy roles where precision and competence are non-negotiable.

 

 

Holding opinions like these does not make Charlie Kirk a nasty or malicious person. What is troubling - and intellectually dishonest - is the selective use of his comments: taking remarks out of context and presenting isolated sound-bites designed to manipulate the optics of his statements.

 

This approach distorts the substance of his arguments and paints a misleading picture of his character. True critique engages with ideas in their full context; misrepresentation is simply nastiness masquerading as analysis.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Do you mean people he personally was engaged with in his debates or public figures that he talked about?

 

Either.

Why would a pilot (white or black) be in the cockpit if they were not qualified, are airlines not monitoring this ?

1 minute ago, Ralf001 said:

Why would a pilot (white or black) be in the cockpit if they were not qualified, are airlines not monitoring this ?

 

 

Worse on Germanwings..............they let mental cases in their cockpits.

Just now, hotandsticky said:

 

 

Worse on Germanwings..............they let mental cases in their cockpits.

 

germanwings ?

The left has to destroy and disparage Kirk he represents everything that stops them.

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Either.

Did you watch the video? Did you see what he said about various people? Those weren't insults?

And, of course, you're backing away from your original statement in which you claimed that a person's character can't be judged on what they say. So, if someone were to say that he'd be worried about getting on a plane with a black and hispanic pilot because he's be worried if they've ever flown a plane before is not a racist insult?  Or insulting a Supreme Court Justice, who has actually had a very distinguished legal career ,on the grounds that she is black and therefore benefited from DEI is not an insult?

4 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

 

germanwings ?

 

 

Do you not have Google?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Just taking, for example, Charlie Kirk’s stance on affirmative action. The video circulated by JT selectively cherry-picks “sound bites” that, on first viewing, may appear racist or bigoted. Yet, upon closer examination of his full arguments, there is substantive reasoning behind his position.

 

Kirk’s central point revolves around the principle of meritocracy. In fields where competence can be a matter of life and death- such as piloting an aircraft or performing surgery - positions should be earned solely on skill, experience, and ability.

 

Suggesting that companies or institutions fill a set number of positions based on demographic criteria - whether race, gender, or ethnicity - risks undermining meritocracy. This approach can result in highly qualified individuals being overlooked in favour of meeting quotas, which may compromise performance in critical roles.

 

Ultimately, when we entrust our lives to professionals, we want confidence that they are chosen for their capabilities and expertise, not because they benefited from preferential treatment. Affirmative action, while aiming to correct historical inequities, raises difficult questions about balancing diversity goals with ensuring the most qualified individuals occupy roles where precision and competence are non-negotiable.

 

 

Holding opinions like these does not make Charlie Kirk a nasty or malicious person. What is troubling - and intellectually dishonest - is the selective use of his comments: taking remarks out of context and presenting isolated sound-bites designed to manipulate the optics of his statements.

 

This approach distorts the substance of his arguments and paints a misleading picture of his character. True critique engages with ideas in their full context; misrepresentation is simply nastiness masquerading as analysis.

 

 

And he also called Martin Luther King, who was himself assassinated, a bad person. How is that not an insult?

Having ’sound reasoning’ behind nasty racist comments does not make the man non-racist. Or good. 
 

7 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Why would a pilot (white or black) be in the cockpit if they were not qualified, are airlines not monitoring this ?

 

Because of affirmative action, companies can sometimes feel pressured to prioritise demographics over qualifications. For instance, if an airline does not employ a Black pilot, a female pilot, or an LGBTQ+ pilot, it may face accusations of bias or exclusion.

 

As a result, organisations are often encouraged to actively recruit from these groups - not necessarily to address competence or skill gaps, but to improve their appearance on the scales of political correctness and avoid criticism.

 

This highlights a broader concern: when policies emphasise representation over merit, the principle of equal opportunity can become distorted.

 

Affirmative action, in this sense, risks prioritising optics and social signalling over competence. True equality of opportunity should be grounded in merit alone, ensuring that positions - especially those where skill and precision are critical - are filled by the most capable individuals, regardless of background.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

Do you not have Google?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

 

Iam not "woke" and swallow the BS posted  by news outlets.

26 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Charlie Kirk has participated in hundreds of debates, consistently inviting polite discussion - even from those who are openly rude to him. On numerous occasions, he has gone out of his way to protect opposing participants from verbal attacks by the audience, emphasising that everyone has the right to voice and defend their viewpoints.

 

His guiding principle has always been the promotion of discussion. Without open dialogue, understanding is impossible. The very essence of debate is to confront differing perspectives respectfully, not to vilify those who hold them.

 

It is, therefore, fundamentally flawed to label someone as a “horrible person” simply because others disagree with them.

 

There is no credible evidence to suggest that Charlie Kirk is inherently cruel or malicious. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that he engages with sensitive topics politely. His arguments may be controversial or disagreeable to some, but they do not demonstrate personal nastiness that would justify such extreme characterisation.

 

Being divisive or holding unpopular opinions does not equate to being horrible - it simply reflects the reality that not everyone will agree with one’s perspective. Debate is not about personal animosity; it is about the exchange of ideas.

 

 

The cultivation of him becomes ridiculous in comparison to to the Lawakers who where attempted murdered and murdered in Minnesota. 

 

Blind leading the blind is what’s happening right now, and Donald Trump and maga making coins of Kirks death making him something he wasn’t 

41 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

to the title ... I'd say it takes one to know one, but that would be wrong also.

 

I think you've reached a new, if that was even possible.  

Trying to make a saint out of Kirk and using his obviously tragic murder in the same way Hitler used the burning of the reichstag to rapidly and radically shift society into a  place where free speech is only for pro fascists and worshippers of dear leader is the actual new low of the Trump - maga movement. 

3 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Did you watch the video? Did you see what he said about various people? Those weren't insults?

And, of course, you're backing away from your original statement in which you claimed that a person's character can't be judged on what they say. So, if someone were to say that he'd be worried about getting on a plane with a black and hispanic pilot because he's be worried if they've ever flown a plane before is not a racist insult?  Or insulting a Supreme Court Justice, who has actually had a very distinguished legal career ,on the grounds that she is black and therefore benefited from DEI is not an insult?

 

This is not a racist insult; it is a critique of affirmative action as a policy.

 

The problem arises when statement such as this are cherry-picked and presented out of context, as the video does. Doing so is misleading and intellectually dishonest, because it distorts the intended argument and portrays it as something it is not.

 

True critique should engage with the full context, rather than manipulating isolated remarks to create a false narrative.

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Here's proof.

 

 

And yet the vile dystopian extremist forces of the shambolic Trump (best friend of Epstein) regime and those trying to whitewash how obnoxious and hateful Kirk REALLY was are trying to CANCEL anyone (getting them fired, etc.) who just shows and opines about EXACTLY what Kirk said in his life. Also they're trying (and largely succeeding) in making a person who was extremely far away from being a saint into a kind of magalicious (sic) martyr-saint. The hypocristy is stunning.

That is disgusting and even some right wingers like Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz get that.

 

Whats wrong?