12 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Many people put 2+2 together and made 4 when Boeing went woke and prioritized DEI hires over hiring most skilled and suitable, which started the era of Boeing planes falling out of the sky. An incredible coincidence if your a wokie Im sure🤣

 

No that is not what caused the problems at Boeing. You obviously have no knowledge of the company or of manufacturing operations. Boeing was a relatively tight operation until 1997, when it merged with the failing and  troubled McDonnell Douglas. It was the McDonell Douglas Executives who won the battle for management positions and that is when the combined company started to rot. McDonell Douglas was short term profit driven. It failed because of that short term strategy. Boeing was product quality focused. After the merger, the only thing that mattered was  an immediate profit. It's an easy excuse to blame DEI, but the reality is that the  people who were setting the production and profit targets were predominately white males.

 

Your claim is so annoying ignorant and downright stupid because it ignores multiple findings by regulators.  Subsequent to the B737 Max fiasco, the US NTSB  investigated  B787 deficiencies and found that it was "Boeing's failure to provide adequate training, guidance, and oversight" to its factory workers," that was the reason why procedures were not properly followed and why there were multiple errors. management wanted fast production and reduced production costs. It achieved that by cutting back on compliance and good manufacturing process.

 

5 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Many of his opinions where sound you say? Wll tells a lot about you.

 

And equally, if we're getting personal, such an intellectually bankrupt comment tells much about you.....    

 

Are you sure you disagree with 100% of the arguments and opinions presented by Kirk ?

 

 

While Kirk was widely recognised for his conservative views, there are instances where his positions align with perspectives held by some on the political left - there are examples of common ground.

 

Support for Free Speech: Kirk has consistently advocated for the protection of free speech, even when it involves controversial or dissenting opinions. This aligns with the left's emphasis on safeguarding First Amendment rights.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/house-charlie-kirk-resolution-vote-c3e1114d

 

Condemnation of Political Violence: Following his assassination, Kirk's death was condemned across the political spectrum, including by many on the left, highlighting a shared commitment to denouncing political violence. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-passes-bipartisan-resolution-honoring-charlie-kirk-2025-09-19

 

Engagement with Diverse Audiences: Kirk's efforts to engage with college students and individuals from various backgrounds demonstrate a commitment to dialogue and understanding, values that resonate with those on the left who advocate for inclusive conversations. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-charlie-kirk-helped-shape-a-conservative-force-for-a-new-generation

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

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.

 

His opinions are about as critical as Thomas Sowell's meticulously researched statements. 

 

And I dare anyone to call Sowell a racist. Or argue facts against him

 

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Another aspect of the post assasination period that I find cringe.

Taking sympathy for his wife which is legit of the course to the point of thinking she's needy and people should give her money.

Kirk's organization was very successful and indeed his wife has now taken over as CEO.

Ironic because one of the big themes of Kirk's disgusting ideology was that women couldn't be happy having careers and raising kids at the same time.

I guess it turns out she wasn't completely on board with obeying her husband trad wife style after all.

Who thinks she's needy and needs money? 

 

I think your ideology that no one should have, much less raise their own kids, and that the purpose of life was a constant pursuit of hedonism and material gain is disgusting. 

 

15 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Expand  

 

I'm sorry, you just killed the discussion with this post.

 

Of course Airlines will use Black, LGBT, not White males just to please the equal opportunities brigade, you're having a laugh.

I would put good money on the fact that the said minorities are better trained and tested to get employed in those positions.

 

As the OP said Kirk didn't deserve to be assassinated but then again I wouldn't have pee'd on him if he was on fire, same goes for all religious nuts, zionists and racists.

 

 

I have literally quoted an example which contradicts your very statment: 

 

 Rep. Shirley Jackson Lee admits that she got where she is because of affirmative action.

 

"I rise today as a clear recipient of affirmative action, particularly in higher education. I may have been admitted on affirmative action, both in terms of being a woman and a woman of color, but I can declare that I did not graduate on affirmative action."

 

 

...and... there is evidence that affirmative action and diversity initiatives in admissions and recruitment have, at times, favoured minority applicants over white males, though the extent and mechanisms vary depending on the field....

 

1. College Admissions (Strongest Evidence)

- In the US, universities have historically used race-conscious admissions policies to boost representation of underrepresented minorities.

- This has meant that, in some cases, Black, Hispanic, or Native American applicants were admitted with lower average test scores or grades than white or Asian applicants.

- Multiple lawsuits (e.g., Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which reached the Supreme Court in 2023) revealed statistical evidence showing that race was sometimes a decisive factor in admissions decisions.

- In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, ruling it unconstitutional, which suggests there was enough proof that it materially affected intake.

 

2. Pilot Training & Aviation

- Commercial aviation: There is no evidence that licensed airline pilots are less qualified due to affirmative action. The FAA maintains strict, standardised requirements for all pilots.

- However, some airlines (e.g., United Airlines in 2021) announced targets for training 50% women and people of colour in their pilot development programmes. While this does not mean lowering FAA standards, it does mean that recruitment and intake prioritised minority candidates for training opportunities.

- Critics argue this effectively “favours” minorities at the entry stage, though defenders insist all trainees must eventually meet identical qualification standards.

 

3. Employment & Professional Licences

- Law and medicine: Similar to aviation, the final licensing standards (bar exam, medical boards) are identical for everyone.

But law school and medical school admissions historically used race-conscious admissions, which favoured minorities at the intake stage—again, now largely curtailed by the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling.

 

 

Thus: 

There is evidence in college admissions and some training programme intakes (like airlines) where minorities were prioritised over white males.

But, there is no evidence that final licensing standards (pilots, doctors, lawyers) are ever lowered - everyone must pass the same exams and training.

 

The debate is  more about who gets in the door.

2 hours 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.

 

 

 

Very nice, very noble.

 

Unfortunately the loudest voices in the US don't seem to be shouting for compromise, reconciiation and mutual understanding........the President certainly isn't.

 

Americans will have to decide who's right or wrong and have their answer ready when the knock comes on the door, unless they can find the hidden valley where the nice people, like you, live........the valley that the bad people don't know about and couldn't find if they did know.

 

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

― Leon Trotsky

 

 

 

3 hours 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.

 

He was a racist, misogynistic, poorly educated, and not particularly bright fascist who just spoke in a calm voice.

 

His comments about Black women...reprehensible.

 

Not exactly a stellar student, even West Point turned him down, and in his bitterness he claimed some undeserving minority or female stole his spot. No Charlie, had you done better in school, maybe you would have been accepted.

 

His spreading of numerous conspiracy theories....moronic...oh, and when proven wrong, rather than state he was wrong, he merely erased all statements on his website where he championed false conspiracy theories.

 

He was patriarchal and patronizing toward women, telling them how they should live (make babies, not careers).

 

He had no concept of actual American values and ideology, seemingly unaware the Founders knew infinitely better where dangers lurked---such as in monarchs and religion and unchecked authority.

 

Yes, terrible he was killed, but it was also terrible that George Lincoln Rockwell was assassinated. The fact is neither added any real value to society.

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Another aspect of the post assasination period that I find cringe.

Taking sympathy for his wife which is legit of the course to the point of thinking she's needy and people should give her money.

Kirk's organization was very successful and indeed his wife has now taken over as CEO.

Ironic because one of the big themes of Kirk's disgusting ideology was that women couldn't be happy having careers and raising kids at the same time.

I guess it turns out she wasn't completely on board with obeying her husband trad wife style after all.

 

Attacking his Wife now...   who's the horrible person ???

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Not in the formal, traditional sense - that is, a debate with standard rules, structured arguments, timed rebuttals, and an impartial moderator ensuring equal speaking opportunities.

 

However, informally, it functioned as a debate in the broader sense: dialogue, argument, audience interaction, and public discussion.

 

There’s no point getting bogged down in semantics. Kirk took questions and engaged with arguments from members of the public, discussing them in the form of an informal debate.

 

 

 

It was not a debate. Kirk had a library of well rehearsed lines. Some were pithy, and others were well worded, but not particularly factual. He would set up his delivery by asking a question or answering in a way that would cause a questioner to set up one of the rehearsed positions that Kirk would then recite.  A debate is an exchange of ideas. A Kirk event was entertainment.

 

Have you ever watched Britain's Got talent, or America's Got talent, or the Idol contests? Do you think the people just show up and are put on the show? The producers look for the most entertaining of people, and they are often people with no real talent who  are expected to make fools of themselves. Spectators want to see people shredded, pilloried, chewed up and spat out.  That's why, the organizers for Kirk events would often screen the people asking questions. They looked for people who were not good public speakers, or who were too arrogant or too biased  and would not appreciate that they were being set up to be sliced and diced.

 

If you want to see a real honest personoffer a debate, check out Parkergetajob on social media. He is a conservative moderate who takes on MAGA cultists. He lets them talk and then calmly exposes the illogic of their statements. Kirk rarely did that.  

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

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. 

 

More of a Horst Wessel "moment" than a Reichstag one.......but America is getting there.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

It was not a debate. Kirk had a library of well rehearsed lines. Some were pithy, and others were well worded, but not particularly factual. He would set up his delivery by asking a question or answering in a way that would cause a questioner to set up one of the rehearsed positions that Kirk would then recite.  A debate is an exchange of ideas. A Kirk event was entertainment.

 

Have you ever watched Britain's Got talent, or America's Got talent, or the Idol contests? Do you think the people just show up and are put on the show? The producers look for the most entertaining of people, and they are often people with no real talent who  are expected to make fools of themselves. Spectators want to see people shredded, pilloried, chewed up and spat out.  That's why, the organizers for Kirk events would often screen the people asking questions. They looked for people who were not good public speakers, or who were too arrogant or too biased  and would not appreciate that they were being set up to be sliced and diced.

 

If you want to see a real honest personoffer a debate, check out Parkergetajob on social media. He is a conservative moderate who takes on MAGA cultists. He lets them talk and then calmly exposes the illogic of their statements. Kirk rarely did that.  

 

A large amount of his debates were with college students, where some were good at debating but most aren't near Kirk's capacity. He did this for a reason. To teach younger minds the things they might not have been taught, and to change their thinking, especially about pro life and abortions, as most of the younger crowd aren't as educated about the topic and only see things in a selfish way, not thinking of the life they are ending but of their own selves. Anyone can go to the microphone, and you can see this by what they say, some tearing into Kirk, not realizing that yes, he was prepared beforehand from many debates. Teaching younger minds is more important than trying to get to adults who are more close minded, but yes this makes the debate more on Kirk's side, as he's not only more educated on the subjects but is better at debating. 

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

It was not a debate. Kirk had a library of well rehearsed lines. Some were pithy, and others were well worded, but not particularly factual. He would set up his delivery by asking a question or answering in a way that would cause a questioner to set up one of the rehearsed positions that Kirk would then recite.  A debate is an exchange of ideas. A Kirk event was entertainment.

 

Perhaps...  but doesn't everyone on a discussion have factoids and lines to bolster and argument ?....   I see your point regarding set up as a 'tactic' rather than an exchange of ideas.

 

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Have you ever watched Britain's Got talent, or America's Got talent, or the Idol contests? Do you think the people just show up and are put on the show? The producers look for the most entertaining of people, and they are often people with no real talent who  are expected to make fools of themselves. Spectators want to see people shredded, pilloried, chewed up and spat out.  That's why, the organizers for Kirk events would often screen the people asking questions. They looked for people who were not good public speakers, or who were too arrogant or too biased  and would not appreciate that they were being set up to be sliced and diced.

 

'The Mingers, The Blingers and The Singers'....  (to Quote Ben Elton's 'Pop Idol' book)...  I get your point... I'm not sure If those with whom Kirk entered public dialogue were 'selected' or not - I certainly wouldn't dismiss such an idea.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

If you want to see a real honest personoffer a debate, check out Parkergetajob on social media. He is a conservative moderate who takes on MAGA cultists. He lets them talk and then calmly exposes the illogic of their statements. Kirk rarely did that.  

 

That would be interesting to watch.

2 hours 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.

Sure, just like Goebbels, who was a perfect, well read, gentleman.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

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

Takes a moment now with your new avatar to tell whether I dislike a Yellowtail post or a Yagoda post.

.... anyway...   This discussion clearly shows how divisive his opinions were.... BUT...  those do not make him a 'horrible person' - rather they make him someone with an opinion and a political agenda....

 

 

1 minute ago, Peter Crow said:

2 hours 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.

Sure, just like Goebbels, who was a perfect, well read, gentleman.

 

Gaslighting - not very clever.

39 minutes ago, James105 said:

This assassination has certainly been revealing.   You can literally put people into boxes on this based on their statements.

 

Antifa/far left/woke left:  Charlie Kirk deserved to be killed.  Celebrates his murder.    

Leftist:  Charlie Kirk didn't deserve to be killed, but <insert out of context leftist media sourced quote here> to justify why it's okay he was murdered.  Have never watched his content and rely on leftist media to be told what opinion they should have of him. 

Liberal:  Charlie Kirk didn't deserve to be killed.

Conservative: Charlie Kirk didn't deserve to be killed.

 

Liberals and conservatives can disagree on just about everything and are capable of civilized debate, but the other 2 groups are incapable of reasonable debate and are an unhinged lost cause who will continue to call people nazi's and fascists despite not really understanding what Nazi's and fascists are or did, and despite the evidence that calling people these names will put a target on the backs of people that they label that other unhinged leftists will use as justification of murdering people to cancel them permanently.  

 

You think the "rightist" and far right are capable of civilzed debate?

 

Their categories and its statements strangely absent from your list........where are they?

 

You have "literally" put yourself in a box.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Takes a moment now with your new avatar to tell whether I dislike a Yellowtail post or a Yagoda post.

As a high IQ leftist, that's all it takes for you. You do not have to consider a position, or formulate a response, you only care about who says it. 

 

When Obama said marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that God was in the mix, he was the greatest statesman in the history of the world. 

 

When Kirk said marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that God was in the mix, he was the devil incarnate.

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Your claim is so annoying ignorant and downright stupid because it ignores multiple findings by regulators.

He shoots. He SCORES!!! 🤣

28 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

- This has meant that, in some cases, Black, Hispanic, or Native American applicants were admitted with lower average test scores or grades than white or Asian applicants.

 

Don't forget the follow-ons.  Higher dropout and failure rate because they're just not prepared when they arrive, then saddled with student loan debt that they can't pay off. 

 

And on and on.

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

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

And who started that fire?

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Many people put 2+2 together and made 4 when Boeing went woke and prioritized DEI hires over hiring most skilled and suitable, which started the era of Boeing planes falling out of the sky. An incredible coincidence if your a wokie Im sure🤣

BS/lies. Boeing started their downward trajectory when they merged with MD in 97. That's when the economist replaced the engineers in the company boardroom.

But don't let facts get in the way of a little mollusk massage, buddy!

 

 

 

"Kirk didn't deserve to be killed BUT he was a horrible person"

 

You knew him?

7 minutes ago, DezLez said:

And who started that fire?

It was Trump, right? 

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

What a totally ignorant thread. Pitiful. Why is it you didn't mention he was ASSASSINATED by a leftist idelogically radicalised trans/furry loving killer.

I did not know that anyone had been found guilty of his death yet!

10 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

You think the "rightist" and far right are capable of civilzed debate?

 

Their categories and its statements strangely absent from your list........where are they?

 

You have "literally" put yourself in a box.

 

 

Well, Charlie Kirk has been described as a conservative/rightist/far-right on here and his entire life was spent engaged in civilized debate with people who disagreed with him, so yes I do.   

 

I couldn't find any evidence of a "rightist" celebrating the actual assassination of a prominent left wing figure or attempting to justify it based on an out of context quote they might have said.  If you could provide evidence of such I'd be happy to create a new box for you.   

Just now, Yellowtail said:

It was Trump, right? 

Trump is not old enough to start THAT German fire but is certainly of agin to have stirred up something else just as horrible.

9 minutes ago, DezLez said:

And who started that fire?

Irrelevant.

It's the way the Nazis EXPLOTED it that is the point.

Very similary to what the maga fascists are trying to do.

He's dead? Usually it is the guy in the red shirt.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I agree. He wasn't trying.

But now he's dead and the maga fascist movement is trying to do exactly that.

They certainly don't want people to actually see videos like in the OP which show what a NASTY hate and bigotry filled piece of work he really was.

Haha.... you are really lost in your quest to make Kirk into someone who deserved killing in front of so many youngsters. You seem to be more filled with hate and bigotry than Kirk was. But, you of all people should know the VDO you posted is full of twisting facts to suit the needs of (of all things) biased women. Why don't you just go get VDOs of Whoopi and post them. They should be touting the same bigotry and hate you seem to want to see.