Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

#2,501
#2,501
Orangeslice13 said:
Ya
She’s a she and mother of 2.
Click to expand...
And an attorney who farts around on VN as well? Multitasker lol.. my kids are grown and my job is not very demanding but I barely have time to pop in .. wowee.. maybe I am confusing with LG .. also a woman and alleged attorney?
 
Last edited:
#2,508
#2,508
hog88 said:
For the most part yes
Click to expand...

When you consider only Austin, greater Houston and Dallas, yes. Many have left California and have arrived in those areas, turning it into its current dilapidated state.

The rest of the state doesn’t even come close to those three areas.

Besides, you have a personal bias towards this state. You’ve told us multiple times that it sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVolette
#2,511
#2,511
Dirtyhairies said:
This is a horrible misrepresentation of what Charlie said and you know it. Not even close to a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

What he said is actually worse than my vague portrayal of it, IMO. He justified all Israeli violence against innocent Palestinians because his perspective is that Hamas "started it" on 10/7. He literally said that Israel bears no responsibility. Nevermind that Israel killed Palestinians regularly in the years leading up to 10/7. A year before 10/7 they killed a bunch of kids and tried to blame it on Hamas. Finally admitted it when faced with facts. Why didn't Kirk or anybody on the right think that murderous aggression justified Hamas retaliation? They are fine with it when the shoe is on the other foot.

And if we take his point to its logical conclusion, then one can just argue that the liberal who shot Kirk is absolved because he was retaliating for the conservative killing two Dems in June, because to him that's the starting point.

Nope, better just to not condone any form of political violence.

1757626088913.png
 
#2,512
#2,512
n_huffhines said:
What he said is actually worse than my vague portrayal of it, IMO. He justified all Israeli violence against innocent Palestinians because his perspective is that Hamas "started it" on 10/7. He literally said that Israel bears no responsibility. Nevermind that Israel killed Palestinians regularly in the years leading up to 10/7. A year before 10/7 they killed a bunch of kids and tried to blame it on Hamas. Finally admitted it when faced with facts. Why didn't Kirk or anybody on the right think that murderous aggression justified Hamas retaliation? They are fine with it when the shoe is on the other foot.

But if we take that point to its logical conclusion, then one can just argue that the liberal who shot Kirk is absolved because he was retaliating for the conservative killing two Dems in June, because to him that's the starting point.

Nope, better just to not condone any form of political violence.

View attachment 772615
Click to expand...

You're broken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, jaybird_1981, Behr and 20 others
#2,513
#2,513
n_huffhines said:
What he said is actually worse than my vague portrayal of it, IMO. He justified all Israeli violence against innocent Palestinians because his perspective is that Hamas "started it" on 10/7. He literally said that Israel bears no responsibility. Nevermind that Israel killed Palestinians regularly in the years leading up to 10/7. A year before 10/7 they killed a bunch of kids and tried to blame it on Hamas. Finally admitted it when faced with facts. Why didn't Kirk or anybody on the right think that murderous aggression justified Hamas retaliation? They are fine with it when the shoe is on the other foot.

And if we take his point to its logical conclusion, then one can just argue that the liberal who shot Kirk is absolved because he was retaliating for the conservative killing two Dems in June, because to him that's the starting point.

Nope, better just to not condone any form of political violence.

View attachment 772615
Click to expand...

Do you really believe everything you just said?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVolette
#2,514
#2,514
volinbham said:
to take the school kids and 2A discussion - I take that as a truism; if you have a 2A you are going to have instances where something like that happens. It's not condoning it or saying it's "worth it" or a small price to pay. It's like saying if you have cars freely available to people you are going to have auto related deaths. Or more extreme, you have have cars freely available some children will die.
Click to expand...
Freedom isn't safe. It never has been and never will be and that's not even remotely limited to the idea of personal firearms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, LadyVolette, 85SugarVol and 2 others
#2,515
#2,515
n_huffhines said:
What he said is actually worse than my vague portrayal of it, IMO. He justified all Israeli violence against innocent Palestinians because his perspective is that Hamas "started it" on 10/7. He literally said that Israel bears no responsibility. Nevermind that Israel killed Palestinians regularly in the years leading up to 10/7. A year before 10/7 they killed a bunch of kids and tried to blame it on Hamas. Finally admitted it when faced with facts. Why didn't Kirk or anybody on the right think that murderous aggression justified Hamas retaliation? They are fine with it when the shoe is on the other foot.

And if we take his point to its logical conclusion, then one can just argue that the liberal who shot Kirk is absolved because he was retaliating for the conservative killing two Dems in June, because to him that's the starting point.

Nope, better just to not condone any form of political violence.

View attachment 772615
Click to expand...

you quote doesn't match what you write about in your post. it is not justifying the deaths, it is attributing the blame. agree or not with attribution, it is not a justification of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, jaybird_1981, LouderVol and 7 others
#2,517
#2,517
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...

Not surprising coming from that piece of trash. She has no business being here as an elected official . Her interests are in Mogadishu and other areas of that disaster of a “country”. She should take herself to Somalia and stay there. And before anyone comes back w/ a “he said go back to Africa” I would say this for anyone who has publicly stated that they are representing the interests of the people of Country X like she did w/ Somalia. She’s unacceptable to hold office in this country and her comments about Kirk have little to do with my feelings towards her and her ambitions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Vol since 77, LadyVolette and 2 others
#2,519
#2,519
swampfoxfan said:
The democrats support feeding the hungry,housing the homeless, healing the sick,loving your neighbor among other things. All things commanded by Jesus and fought against by republicans.
Click to expand...
Jesus told his followers to do those things. He didn’t tell His followers to give all their money to Rome and let them do it for them.
Compulsory charity (via taxation) has absolutely ZERO moral benefit.
Studies have consistently shown conservatives being more generous is charitable giving. Democrats think that once they file their tax return that their job is done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, LadyVolette, InVOLuntary and 2 others
#2,525
#2,525
rjd970 said:
I try to stay out of the politics of all this, because it’s generally an exercise in futility.

But I’ve concluded that I will never be able to wrap my head around somebody hating so much that it comes to this.

It’s sad, and frankly embarrassing, that our political discourse results in violence.

And anybody with half a brain cell should see this is a senseless tragedy no matter what.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately we have a track record on that one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top