1 minute ago, Harrisfan said:

Wrong Shapiro

Oh sorry!

Of course the far right wing pundit Shapiro loved Kirk. DUH!

 

He was accused of being antisemitic because he pointed out what was going on with some groups, saying this from the following link......Kirk drew controversy after he derided Jewish philanthropy to American universities for “subsidizing your own demise by supporting institutions that breed Anti-Semites and endorse genocidal killers.”...........https://jhvonline.com/charlie-kirk-conservative-activist-who-considered-himself-a-defender-of-je-p35360-164.htm

And what do you think about Martin Luther King?

 

I’m an MLK scholar – and I’ll never be able to view King in the same light

https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-scholar-and-ill-never-be-able-to-view-king-in-the-same-light-118015

 

Would you say Martin Luther King was a terrible person? 

Best friends with Owald lol the female uncle Tom.

If people actually listened to him, theyd realise he was none of what the leftists claim. Charlie was too effective, so they had to silence him. They realised, too many people were starting to actually listen, rather than BS out of context quotes

 

Not racist

Not fascist

Not misogynist

Not nazi

 

Eloquent

Persuasive

Smart

Effective

52 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Have to disagree. He expressed the extreme right of white Christian nationalism. Personally I cannot think of any "good" emanating from people like him. Yes he encouraged dialogue. However, in my opinion the purpose of which was to convince people of MAGA's hateful ideology. Some detail of his appalling POV...

 

'Not about healing': Black Caucus hits out at Charlie Kirk honor

 

Your link is full of misquotes and manipulated paraphrasing - the article itself contains exaggerated or outright misrepresentations....  Examples: 

 

1964 Civil Rights Act and Integrated Public Accommodation:

Charlie Kirk has critiqued the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but he did not state it was a "mistake." His criticisms centred around the scope of federal power and how the Act impacted private businesses' rights. He argued that businesses should have the freedom to serve whoever they choose and that the government should not be involved in forcing businesses to integrate. So, while he was not a supporter of the Act in the same way civil rights advocates are, the article claiming that he called it a "mistake" is a missrepresentation.

 

Attacking Dr. Martin Luther King:

Kirk had been critical of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but this was more of a nuanced critique of King’s philosophy. He questioned King’s tactics and how his vision aligns with modern-day conservative values, but there's no evidence to suggest that he has repeatedly attacked King in a disrespectful manner. The claim of "repeatedly attacking" is an exaggeration of his occasional criticisms.

 

"Prowling Blacks" Statement:

This is a highly controversial and misleading claim. There is no evidence or record of Kirk saying that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people” in cities. This again is a misrepresentation or a quote taken out of context. Kirk has been outspoken about crime in certain cities, but has not made such a specific statement.

 

Black Pilots and Airline Quotas:

Kirk made controversial remarks about "diversity" in hiring practices, including in the aviation industry. He suggested that some diversity hiring practices could result in hiring individuals who are less qualified for the job, including in sectors like aviation. As already heavily discussed, these comments could be interpreted as controversial and potentially problematic, the claim about "endangering passengers with unqualified Black pilots" is an oversimplification. He has voiced concerns about racial quotas, but not in the extreme or directly racist terms that this claim suggests.

 

Paying Tribute to a Pastor Who Claimed Slavery Was a Godly Institution:

There was an incident where Kirk praised a pastor, but the pastor in question, Dr. Robert Jeffress, has made inflammatory statements about slavery being part of God’s plan in the past. Kirk has praised Jeffress for his role in the Christian community, but this specific claim about slavery being a “godly institution” is far more about Jeffress' views rather than Kirk’s direct endorsement. Kirk’s praise for Jeffress is misinterpreted.

 

 

In summary: the link you provide is inaccurate, manipulative and false.

 

I'm not here supporting Kirk - my interest in this thread it in observing the outright lies that people are posting and calling people out for not being able to recognise their own bias.

 

For the record, I disagree with most of what Kirk supports - such as his Gun Rights Advocacy, his opposition to Same-Sex Marriage, his support for Traditional Gender Roles, his opposition to Abortion - but also agree with his criticism of Affirmative Action, his dismissal of White Privilege....

5 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 good man, please respect the recently deceased, I find this post highly offensive and highlights how low one can go due to their irrational hatred of a democratically elected president.

27 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

We all know you hate Trump. I dislike him myself and only hope he does his job, but have you ever tried to look at Kirk without that political thinking? I've never seen any talk of white supremacy or prejudice from him. Did I somehow miss some videos where he said this?

Well said Fred - nail on the head.  Unfortunately for people like the poster you answered and many others, they can only see the hatred that has been pumped into them again and again and again.  They believed the media lies about Trump such as Russiagate, Hunter Laptop, The Border, Wuhan Covid, and so many other things.  Yet they just cannot ask themselves - maybe he is just like every other politician and he distorts and lies and just gets it wrong now and then. Who can forget Obama "Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep it."  and so many other lies, errors, distortions.  The truth is they all get it wrong, distort, and lie - that is what politicians do - all of them.

 

In 1910 the world was in a massive panic - because the AP had published a false story based on rubbish information and speculation, that Halley's Comet was going to hit the earth or at least cause massive fireballs across the world.  That 'fake news' went viral in the newspapers (only mass media then) and was spread all over the western world. The media always distort and lie - it is what generates their own business - they love wars because that generates more business - they loved Covid because it generated more business. They are truly, as Trump said, the enemy of the People. 

 

https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/the-comet-panic-of-1910-revisited/

 

Trying to tell radical woke liberals that Trump is not Hitler, and mad-hatter greenies that the world is not going to end, is like trying to talk sense to a person in 1910 who believes all the media hype of the day about the Comet.  Who can ever forget the total and utter panic that people went through about Covid - all generated by the media distorting the truth and lying about things - to generate more business. Trying to tell  people in 2020 that Covid is not going to kill 25-50% of the people on the planet, was like trying to talk sense to a person in 1910 who believed all the media hype of the day about the Comet.  Same Same - some people just cannot be 'saved'. 

 

Did the media distort things and lie so much about the Trans issue and conservatives like Charlie Kirk, that it drove a foolish young unwell man to kill him - IMO Yes. 

56 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

    If Kirk was alive in 1940's Germany .

Would it be OK for the opposition to kill him ?

   

 ( P.S Don't run away from the question replying with "Troll bait ignored*)

Weird question but I'm guessing you are saying if Kirk was in wartime Germany and he was a Nazi soldier would it be OK for anti-Nazi forces to kill him? Why do you ask such a dumb question!

If you're getting into the question of killing civilians in wartime, it's my view that it's not OK to do that intentionally but that it's an inevitable "side effect" of war.

Of course the fact that the allies bombarded civilian targets to level German cities not to mention Hiroshima remains controversial today.

Putin is doing similar now in Ukraine and I certainly think that's not OK!

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No.

Calling liberal Jews who are the majority of American Jews cultural Marxists is basically right wing HATE SPEECH.

It's the type of thing that the tiki torch boys at Charlottesville chanting the Jews will not replace us think.

DISGUSTING. 

Liar. He does not call liberal American Jews cultural Marxists, nor was he at Charlottesville chanting Jews will not replace us. 

31 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Have you even seen many of his videos where he favors the Jews? Not quite Nazi thinking from what I've seen.

He was a good friend of Israel and Netanyahu.

The looney left are disgustingly making up false claims as they celebrate a young fathers death, horrible.

33 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

35 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Are you saying that if Kirk was alive in 1940's Germany he'd be a Nazi?

You didn't ask me but my answer is DEFINITELY. 

 

Your unhinged negative bias betrays a lack of balance unbecoming of intelligent discourse.

 

Equating Charlie Kirk with a Nazi is historically and logically inaccurate. Nazis were totalitarian, genocidal, anti-democratic, and anti-capitalist. Kirk operates entirely within a democratic framework, champions free speech, and works through debate and public engagement.

 

Yes, he emphased nationalism and sometimes talked about demographic change, but that is rhetorical and political, not genocidal. Criticism of his views should be focusing on the content and consequences of his arguments today - not on hyperbolic historical comparisons that lack critical though and only seek to point score with a cheap-shot.

7 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Best friends with Owald lol the female uncle Tom.

Yes, all blacks that are not leftists are Uncle Toms. 

Just now, JimCM said:

He was a good friend of Israel and Netanyahu.

The looney left are disgustingly making up false claims as they celebrate a young fathers death, horrible.

"The Jews" and the right wing government of Israel sadly led by a war criminal are not the same thing, buddy. 

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Weird question but I'm guessing you are saying if Kirk was in wartime Germany and he was a Nazi soldier would it be OK for anti-Nazi forces to kill him? Why do you ask such a dumb question!

If you're getting into the question of killing civilians in wartime, it's my view that it's not OK to do that intentionally but that it's an inevitable "side effect" of war.

Of course the fact that the allies bombarded civilian targets to level German cities not to mention Hiroshima remains controversial today.

Putin is doing similar now in Ukraine and I certainly think that's not OK!

Do you condemn what the IDF is doing in Gaza ?
I bet you don’t. 
 

32 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The white nationalist racism.

The ideology of white American culture being the superior one and that it should be dominant.

 

Again, your unhinged negative bias betrays a lack of balance - it seems your sole goal is to slander a name with lies out of political bias rather than having any intelligent discussion.

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Your unhinged negative bias betrays a lack of balance unbecoming of intelligent discourse.

 

Equating Charlie Kirk with a Nazi is historically and logically inaccurate. Nazis were totalitarian, genocidal, anti-democratic, and anti-capitalist. Kirk operates entirely within a democratic framework, champions free speech, and works through debate and public engagement.

 

Yes, he emphased nationalism and sometimes talked about demographic change, but that is rhetorical and political, not genocidal. Criticism of his views should be focusing on the content and consequences of his arguments today - not on hyperbolic historical comparisons that lack critical though and only seek to point score with a cheap-shot.

I didn't say he was literally a Nazi while alive.

I said IF someone with his ideology was alive in Germany during the Nazi era, there is no doubt whatsoever that he'd be a Nazi.

DUH. 

1 minute ago, JimCM said:

Do you condemn what the IDF is doing in Gaza ?
I bet you don’t. 
 

You lost your bet. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Your unhinged negative bias betrays a lack of balance unbecoming of intelligent discourse.

 

Equating Charlie Kirk with a Nazi is historically and logically inaccurate. Nazis were totalitarian, genocidal, anti-democratic, and anti-capitalist. Kirk operates entirely within a democratic framework, champions free speech, and works through debate and public engagement.

 

Yes, he emphased nationalism and sometimes talked about demographic change, but that is rhetorical and political, not genocidal. Criticism of his views should be focusing on the content and consequences of his arguments today - not on hyperbolic historical comparisons that lack critical though and only seek to point score with a cheap-shot.

The same as his calling half the US fascists.

Looney left are such poor losers and the main cause of this crazy polarization

Just now, Jingthing said:

You lost your bet. 

Oh, that’s progress, can you bring yourself to say it?

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I didn't say he was literally a Nazi while alive.

I said IF someone with his ideology was alive in Germany during the Nazi era, there is no doubt whatsoever that he'd be a Nazi.

DUH. 

 

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You lost your bet. 

Wow, so you're supporting Palestine now. 

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Again, your unhinged negative bias betrays a lack of balance - it seems your sole goal is to slander a name with lies out of political bias rather than having any intelligent discussion.

Everything that comes out of the left is,  you are a fascist, you are a Nazi, your are the worst person on the planet. 

2 minutes ago, JimCM said:

Oh, that’s progress, can you bring yourself to say it?

He was all for it up until ten minutes ago

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Again, your unhinged negative bias betrays a lack of balance - it seems your sole goal is to slander a name with lies out of political bias rather than having any intelligent discussion.

It is more Trump derangement disorder. Many of my friend are acting like this, which is totally out of character.

Its only politics, don’t let hatred occupy your daily social  life.

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Wow, so you're supporting Palestine now. 

Lame.....so, so lame.😄

28 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I just looked that up.

Kirk and Shapiro were not friends at all.

 

Wrong - more lies from you highlighting your sole slanderous intentions.

 

Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro are known to have a friendly and professional relationship.

 

- Both are prominent conservative figures in the US, and they’ve collaborated on events, podcasts, and speaking tours.

- Shapiro had appeared at events hosted by Kirk’s Turning Point USA and has praised Kirk on multiple occasions for his activism and organisational skills.

- While they may have occasional differences in style or emphasis, their relationship is generally one of mutual respect and shared ideological goals.

 

So....  “friends” in the sense of professional allies and collaborators - though any depth of personal friendship beyond politics is less publicly documented....

 

 

Overlaps:

1) Conservative Principles: Both advocate for free markets, limited government, and traditional values.

2) Free Speech Advocacy: They strongly support campus free speech and regularly critique “cancel culture.”

3) Pro-Western, Pro-American Outlook: Both emphasise American exceptionalism and Western civilisation.

4) Opposition to Progressive Policies: They critique aspects of DEI initiatives, identity politics, and progressive social policy.

5) Media Engagement: Both are media-savvy, using podcasts, YouTube, and social media to reach younger audiences.

 

Differences:

1) Style and Tone: Shapiro is highly analytical, fact-driven, and relies on logic in debate. Kirk is more populist, emotive, and rhetorical in his style.

2) Focus Areas: Shapiro often concentrates on cultural and legal arguments, while Kirk emphasises activism, youth mobilisation, and organisational outreach.

3) Rhetorical Aggressiveness: Kirk’s style can be more confrontational and provocative, which appeals to younger audiences but sometimes drew sharper criticism.

 

Why They Got Along:

- Their shared ideological foundation provides common ground.

- Their complementary strengths - Shapiro’s logic and Kirk’s activism- allowed collaboration without significant friction.

- Both benefited from mutual exposure: Shapiro reaches youth via Kirk’s network, while Kirk gains credibility via Shapiro’s intellectual authority.

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I didn't say he was literally a Nazi while alive.

I said IF someone with his ideology was alive in Germany during the Nazi era, there is no doubt whatsoever that he'd be a Nazi.

DUH. 

 

    I don't know much about Kirk .

But did he side with Nazis/Hamas in their quest to annihilate Jews ?

Was he pro Palestinian ?

 

17 minutes ago, dannyb123 said:

If people actually listened to him, theyd realise he was none of what the leftists claim. Charlie was too effective, so they had to silence him. They realised, too many people were starting to actually listen, rather than BS out of context quotes

 

Not racist

Not fascist

Not misogynist

Not nazi

 

Eloquent

Persuasive

Smart

Effective

Who is "they"? 🙂

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Wrong - more lies from you highlighting your sole slanderous intentions.

 

Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro are known to have a friendly and professional relationship.

 

- Both are prominent conservative figures in the US, and they’ve collaborated on events, podcasts, and speaking tours.

- Shapiro had appeared at events hosted by Kirk’s Turning Point USA and has praised Kirk on multiple occasions for his activism and organisational skills.

- While they may have occasional differences in style or emphasis, their relationship is generally one of mutual respect and shared ideological goals.

 

So....  “friends” in the sense of professional allies and collaborators - though any depth of personal friendship beyond politics is less publicly documented....

 

 

Overlaps:

1) Conservative Principles: Both advocate for free markets, limited government, and traditional values.

2) Free Speech Advocacy: They strongly support campus free speech and regularly critique “cancel culture.”

3) Pro-Western, Pro-American Outlook: Both emphasise American exceptionalism and Western civilisation.

4) Opposition to Progressive Policies: They critique aspects of DEI initiatives, identity politics, and progressive social policy.

5) Media Engagement: Both are media-savvy, using podcasts, YouTube, and social media to reach younger audiences.

 

Differences:

1) Style and Tone: Shapiro is highly analytical, fact-driven, and relies on logic in debate. Kirk is more populist, emotive, and rhetorical in his style.

2) Focus Areas: Shapiro often concentrates on cultural and legal arguments, while Kirk emphasises activism, youth mobilisation, and organisational outreach.

3) Rhetorical Aggressiveness: Kirk’s style can be more confrontational and provocative, which appeals to younger audiences but sometimes drew sharper criticism.

 

Why They Got Along:

- Their shared ideological foundation provides common ground.

- Their complementary strengths - Shapiro’s logic and Kirk’s activism- allowed collaboration without significant friction.

- Both benefited from mutual exposure: Shapiro reaches youth via Kirk’s network, while Kirk gains credibility via Shapiro’s intellectual authority.

I thought he meant GOVERNOR Shapiro.