Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

#3,876
#3,876
MontyPython said:
Mhmmmm…

A few Kirk quotes:

Called for a "Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor"; labeled the LGBTQ+ movement a "death cult."

"Having children is more important than having a good career"; women over 30 "aren’t attractive in the dating pool" and birth control makes them "angry and bitter."

Supported delivering a baby even if a 10-year-old rape victim sought abortion: "The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered."

Claimed Haitian migrants in Springfield, OH, were "eating people’s pets"; said immigrants "won’t stop until you and your children... are eliminated" and could "steal your home."

"America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years"; endorsed "Great Replacement" by suggesting immigrants aim to "replace white Americans."
Click to expand...
Let me take a wild guess...an article from somewhere like the Guardian where they posted fragmented quotes with no context? Probably prefaced it by calling him a racist, sexist, bigot? Any of that sound spot-on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and marcusluvsvols
#3,878
#3,878
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, why are you saying it's unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
A straightforward question. The answer is a bit more complex. Sorry if this is too long or gets in the weeds.
I look at our constitution as a document that covers how our government works, the powers it has, the relationship between the states and fed, and the powers it doesn't have...including, but not limited to the BoR,...in other words the fed's relationship with us.
In that context, what the fed is allowed to do is outlined as duties, mandates, requirements, etc. The function, powers, and relationship with states are not outlined as prohibitions. They are affirmed or stated. The powers it doesn't have, or said another way, the power (rights) that we have are outlined not as mandates or affirmed. They are written as prohibitions on the fed.
The amendments are a little bit of both approaches. Sometimes with good results. Sometimes not.
Lastly, I believe what isn't expressly outlined as a responsibility of the federal defaults to the states.
With that general overview, my answer is: there is no prohibition on the federal funding higher education because the document isn't structured that way. The structure would (or should) require that duty to be affirmed. And since higher education is under the control of states, the federal should not have any duty. It isn't affirmed and it defaults to states in application as well as controlled by the states in responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL, HammondB3Vol and marcusluvsvols
#3,879
#3,879
MontyPython said:
Mhmmmm…

A few Kirk quotes:

Called for a "Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor"; labeled the LGBTQ+ movement a "death cult."

"Having children is more important than having a good career"; women over 30 "aren’t attractive in the dating pool" and birth control makes them "angry and bitter."

Supported delivering a baby even if a 10-year-old rape victim sought abortion: "The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered."

Claimed Haitian migrants in Springfield, OH, were "eating people’s pets"; said immigrants "won’t stop until you and your children... are eliminated" and could "steal your home."

"America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years"; endorsed "Great Replacement" by suggesting immigrants aim to "replace white Americans."
Click to expand...
The hypothetical 10 year old in question was his own daughter..

clearly you didn’t actually watch, understand the context and catalog all of this yourself. Instead it’s some cherry picked quotes to confirm your own biased. Move on
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, -GiveHim6-, whodeycin85 and 2 others
#3,884
#3,884
Flogballs said:
Like calling people fascists and Nazis?
Click to expand...
Yes, and also calling people Marxists and Communists like Trump has been routinely doing for the last ten years. It's from both sides, Pal. Until you realize that fact, you will always be part of the problem. We can only heal when a real leader will step up and demand it from both sides
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen and swampfoxfan
#3,886
#3,886
BeardedVol said:
Benny Johnson is of course a paragon of honesty and calm political discourse.
Click to expand...


I normally don't even engage Lefties because i know its pointless most of the time, but several of you have mentioned or copy/pasted from AI lists in this thread calling the Minnesota killer a Right wing guy. He was literally part of DEMOCRAT governor Tim Walz administration. Appointed by a Democrat...to work for Democrats in a Democrat administration.

Then...when a couple other Democrats did NOT VOTE WITH DEMOCRATS causing a bill to NOT pass in state legislature, the DEMOCRAT killer went and shot 4 DEMOCRATS killing 2 DEMOCRATS.

So what part of that is a Republican? What part of that has anything whatsoever to do with the Right?

Did the killer wear a George Bush costume for Halloween when he was 13yo and his PARENTS still chose and paid for his costume?? Because that EXACT ridiculous BS argument is what you delusional Lefties are trying to do TODAY to try and make Kirks murderer a Right winger despite it being complete BS. I know something being completely factually BS is not a deterrent to many these days. The fact that this killers Mom and Dad bought him a Trump costume when he wasnt old enough to be molested in a shower by Joe Biden obviously has nothing to do with the guys OWN political beliefs as a 22yo young man. So which part of the murders in MN or the murder of Charlie have anything to do with the Right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, whodeycin85 and Zues1
#3,890
#3,890
Flogballs said:
The hypothetical 10 year old in question was his own daughter..

clearly you didn’t actually watch, understand the context and catalog all of this yourself. Instead it’s some cherry picked quotes to confirm your own biased. Move on
Click to expand...
Wait.. what? The fact that he’s talking about his own daughter being forced to have a baby after being raped as a 10-year-old somehow makes this better?

😱

Curious… would you force your 10 year-old daughter to have a baby if she were raped? Do tell.
 
#3,891
#3,891
CubsFanTN said:
He wasn't asked about Charlie or Charlie's family, he was asked how he was doing. He answered and moved on. He ordered flags half mast and had Charlie's body flown on AF2. Short of declaring a national holiday, what else would you like him to do?
Click to expand...
Have that same kind of energy when children are murdered in schools… but that’s just what I would like him to do. Hbu?
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#3,894
#3,894
McDad said:
A straightforward question. The answer is a bit more complex. Sorry if this is too long or gets in the weeds.
I look at our constitution as a document that covers how our government works, the powers it has, the relationship between the states and fed, and the powers it doesn't have...including, but not limited to the BoR,...in other words the fed's relationship with us.
In that context, what the fed is allowed to do is outlined as duties, mandates, requirements, etc. The function, powers, and relationship with states are not outlined as prohibitions. They are affirmed or stated. The powers it doesn't have, or said another way, the power (rights) that we have are outlined not as mandates or affirmed. They are written as prohibitions on the fed.
The amendments are a little bit of both approaches. Sometimes with good results. Sometimes not.
Lastly, I believe what isn't expressly outlined as a responsibility of the federal defaults to the states.
With that general overview, my answer is: there is no prohibition on the federal funding higher education because the document isn't structured that way. The structure would (or should) require that duty to be affirmed. And since higher education is under the control of states, the federal should not have any duty. It isn't affirmed and it defaults to states in application as well as controlled by the states in responsibility.
Click to expand...

I would have taken a position more like this in the past. I was a hardliner about avoiding broad interpretation for federal powers and I was a big proponent of the 10th amendment checking the feds. I still think this way and wish it were this way, but I just know for practical purposes that if I make this point, I'm speaking a different language from the rest of the world when I'm saying what's constitutional and what's not.

It's that pesky general welfare clause. They can just say spending on education promotes general welfare, and that's good enough for everybody who actually has a say in the matter in every era of American history, basically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#3,899
#3,899
BernardKingGOAT said:
Yes, and also calling people Marxists and Communists like Trump has been routinely doing for the last ten years. It's from both sides, Pal. Until you realize that fact, you will always be part of the problem. We can only heal when a real leader will step up and demand it from both sides
Click to expand...


Bernie Sanders, AOC, the soon to be mayor of NYC call THEMSELVES Socialists, Social Dems, etc. You don't see the difference? The BLM website and ActBlue clearly calls themself Marxist. Its plain English man. Theres a big difference IMO between calling someone something that they actually are and calling someone a Nazi or Fascist. There are NO actual Nazis or Fascists in the US. None that are in any way relevant anyway. There might be some stupid cult of losers in some town that call themselves that...but there are zero politicians in this country that are Nazis OR Fascists. That isnt a threat to our nation. Socialism, Marxism, and Communism (which are all similar and related) are a very real threat to this country. There are groups of these morons on many college campuses. Many of the same idiots that are also pro Hamas and hate Jews. Theres a huge difference IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CABVOL, InVOLuntary and StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top