Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

[Sea Ray]

I bet Whoopi's on Ozempic. That said, I do agree with her comments there.

 

[Orangeburst]

nm

 

[midnight orange]

"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

the free exercise thereof is a pretty important clause. And I think its pretty clear it goes far beyond one Christian sect over another. it respects any religious choice, for or against.

keeping that separation of any religion from matters of state would be key in maintaining the free exercise thereof.

It didn’t go beyond Christian sects when it was written. There were no Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Daoist, Taoist, etc. There was a small Jewish sect in Rhode Island? that George Washington had to pen a letter to his he locals urging them to be left alone. It was written with the implicit understanding that it was a nation of Christians. Free exercise thereoff meant that the general government (Congress) could not limit free exercise. It did not apply to the states.

 

[KB5252]

I've watched some of his remarks now and disagree with your characterization. You take many of the pretty awful things he said and cloak it in some other context that mitigates it. But to do so you are in the end just interpreting what he said based on other occasions to ultimately sanitize it.

Not going to work. He said many awful things about blacks and religious minorities. You cant take those remarks and go find other, less obnoxious remarks, and say the latter make the former on the whole "okay."

Look I may have seen a few of his interactions before this happened. But since that time his videos have flooded my feeds for obvious reasons. And I've seen a few of the questionable/troubling statements. A couple I think I knew what he was trying to say but in the moment a word left out makes a huge difference. Some others were just out of character for him.

The vast majority though, 90%+ I saw nothing wrong with, agreed with much of it. Here's the problem with the lefts characterisations of him, he's judged by a few bad responses, when it can be demonstrated many more times he gave positive uplifting messages, even when disagreeing.

I just find it hard to process that group finds it ok to villify a person, call him a Nazi, call him a racist without ever listening to more than a few cherry picked sound bites. It's the epitome of disingenuous and ultimately got the man killed.

If we were to sit down and watch each interaction of his one by one I think you'd come to the conclusion, with me, that he was engaging and respectful, when given respect in debate. Preached non violence, wanted no one arrested for simple assaults made against him. You'd have no problem with what he said, even if you disagreed with it 99% of the time. Yet you (not you but the left in general) define him by the <1%.

This is what I hate about public discourse in America, and yes I'm aware this happens both ways. But that's what I really liked about what he was doing.

 

[volbeast33]

I 100% disagree.

 

[InVOLuntary]

.

 

[volbeast33]

Look I may have seen a few of his interactions before this happened. But since that time his videos have flooded my feeds for obvious reasons. And I've seen a few of the questionable/troubling statements. A couple I think I knew what he was trying to say but in the moment a word left out makes a huge difference. Some others were just out of character for him.

The vast majority though, 90%+ I saw nothing wrong with, agreed with much of it. Here's the problem with the lefts characterisations of him, he's judged by a few bad responses, when it can be demonstrated many more times he gave positive uplifting messages, even when disagreeing.

I just find it hard to process that group finds it ok to villify a person, call him a Nazi, call him a racist without ever listening to more than a few cherry picked sound bites. It's the epitome of disingenuous and ultimately got the man killed.

If we were to sit down and watch each interaction of his one by one I think you'd come to the conclusion, with me, that he was engaging and respectful, when given respect in debate. Preached non violence, wanted no one arrested for simple assaults made against him. You'd have no problem with what he said, even if you disagreed with it 99% of the time. Yet you (not you but the left in general) define him by the <1%.

This is what I hate about public discourse in America, and yes I'm aware this happens both ways. But that's what I really liked about what he was doing.

Here is CK welcoming Homosexuals to the conservative movement.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Gross. Must be a franchise location. Hope he sues their ass off. Thanks for being the only poster to show an example thus far

Yeah, firing someone over what his wife said is way out of bounds. That’s why is the kind of stuff the libs tried to pull with Clarence Thomas. We should be better than that. The only people I want to see lose their jobs are the actual individuals and only if they are educators or health care providers.
I know the right has decades of pent up resentment over cancel culture but that doesn’t give us license to become the very thing we oppose.
Take a breath people. Take your anger out at the ballot box. Show up in record numbers for the 2026 midterms. And maybe send a donation to Turning Point USA. Do this the way Charlie would have wanted us to.

 

[Vol737]

This gets to a weird spot imo.

if something is costing the company money somehow, someway; should the company be expected to maintain status quo?

if an environment is created where the workers don't feel comfortable working for someone, no matter the reason, should corporate do nothing about it?

its crappy they fired one person over what another said, but if it disrupts business and costs them money, I don't see why any company would tolerate it.

Understood, but I wonder how much of a knee jerk reaction this was by the general public before anyone knew the whole story. I think a lot of people would understand his reinstatement once it was clear it was his ex that flew off the handle unhinged and these were not necessarily his opinions nor his post. Tough spot. One party is playing damage control, the other was what most objective people would view as a wrongful termination, so to speak.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Correct, all speech is protected.. you just cannot threaten violence or incite. (Unless your name is Maxine Waters) Which you could make the argument that these teachers and whatnot were doing just that. But all speech is protected, even of it is offensive or reprehensible to other people.

finished your post.

 

[Vol737]

Here is CK welcoming Homosexuals to the conservative movement.

What a total bigot.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

I didn't watch the clip but anyone with any awareness of where this society currently stands knows there is a huge divide, has been for some time. And I think it inevitable that more targeted violence occurs. I think anyone who is intellectually honest should be apprehensive about where we go from here.

This will make everyone feel good…SIAP.
Straight to Arkham asylum
NSFW
They’re both sick. They both are like something out of movie.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

That guy is awesome.

 

[LouderVol]

Congress will not establish a religion. Check. They haven't.

Congress shall not prohibit "the free exchange thereof"... The free exercise of religion?

OK. Sounds like freedom OF religion, as opposed to freedom FROM religion.

the OF/From thing is a matter of perspective imo.

If I want to practice my religion freely, that requires the government to not impose religious based laws that might run counter to an individual religion.

the only way to avoid a conflict OF one religion vs another is to have separation of church and state.

and I don't know if you have paid attention to history, but most Christians don't agree with each other about what the bible says/means; and have fought multiple wars over it. I don't see it getting any better with trying to establish the "true christianity" for the purposes of the state creating laws.

 

[lawgator1]

Look I may have seen a few of his interactions before this happened. But since that time his videos have flooded my feeds for obvious reasons. And I've seen a few of the questionable/troubling statements. A couple I think I knew what he was trying to say but in the moment a word left out makes a huge difference. Some others were just out of character for him.

The vast majority though, 90%+ I saw nothing wrong with, agreed with much of it. Here's the problem with the lefts characterisations of him, he's judged by a few bad responses, when it can be demonstrated many more times he gave positive uplifting messages, even when disagreeing.

I just find it hard to process that group finds it ok to villify a person, call him a Nazi, call him a racist without ever listening to more than a few cherry picked sound bites. It's the epitome of disingenuous and ultimately got the man killed.

If we were to sit down and watch each interaction of his one by one I think you'd come to the conclusion, with me, that he was engaging and respectful, when given respect in debate. Preached non violence, wanted no one arrested for simple assaults made against him. You'd have no problem with what he said, even if you disagreed with it 99% of the time. Yet you (not you but the left in general) define him by the <1%.

This is what I hate about public discourse in America, and yes I'm aware this happens both ways. But that's what I really liked about what he was doing.

I have to somewhat defer to your summary because I have not watched a ton of his commentary. Before the shooting, I imagine I had likely heard of him but his media presence seems to have really taken hold in circles I obviously don't travel so I am just not that familiar. What I have seen since just makes me shake my head.

But I will ask you this: would you agree that for a certain portion of his routine audience, they tuned in not for his more moderated comments or any centrist views, but for the fireworks?` The same is true of people spouting left wing points of view.

And, this is what I don't like about the current state of discourse -- and I imagine you agree with me -- the way people and platforms make money off of all of this division is to promote it, to actively ratchet it up. The nation gets angrier and less tolerant, less willing to hear form the other side, and they laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Understood, but I wonder how much of a knee jerk reaction this was by the general public before anyone knew the whole story. I think a lot of people would understand his reinstatement once it was clear it was his ex that flew off the handle unhinged and these were not necessarily his opinions nor his post. Tough spot. One party is playing damage control, the other was what most objective people would view as a wrongful termination, so to speak.

Can you sue for wrongful termination in a right to work state?

 

[Vol737]

I've watched some of his remarks now and disagree with your characterization. You take many of the pretty awful things he said and cloak it in some other context that mitigates it. But to do so you are in the end just interpreting what he said based on other occasions to ultimately sanitize it.

Not going to work. He said many awful things about blacks and religious minorities. You cant take those remarks and go find other, less obnoxious remarks, and say the latter make the former on the whole "okay."

And we also know a good number of those comments were taken completely out of context as we have seen. And no, I'm not going to go look them up, but we have all seen those instances and realized it probably didn't come across as intended. Yes, I think he should have said certain things a different way, but who among us hasn't said something the wrong way to someone before that wasn't necessarily the intent behind the message?

 

[luthervol]

Trump is known for his nicknames but he's not known for nicknames that tie a person to a cold blooded killer like Hitler. You must be able to see that difference. Nor does he use words that can't be used on network television like Schumer did

I will say Luther, I do not recall you name calling very often. That sets you apart from the Bluesky crowd

Thanks. I think if anyone looked into it, they would find about a 20 to 1 ratio of names I am called to names I call others.
This is the perfect thread for considering why that may be.

 

[LouderVol]

No they weren't. You're trying to justify what you think is a cool position as hating everyone. It's a weak position. The poling has never shown that a significant portion of conservatives thought political assassinations were acceptable. We are not the same regardless of your efforts to try and place yourself in the middle.

Maybe our definition of "significant" differs, but when you are talking about a hundred million, or more, Republicans a pretty small percentage of people is a significant issue. and IIRC it was still around 20% or more. thats not bragging territory.

how is it a weak position to be counter to both major parties and maintaining your beliefs? you are the one who will fold to whatever Trump tells you. before Trump it was any old Republican you probably now think is weak that you kowtowed for.

 

[Vol737]

Can you sue for wrongful termination in a right to work state?

A couple of us were talking about that a little earlier last night. There are few conditions that apply in an at will state where one cannot be fired. Just don't know if this situation falls in any of those categories.

At-will employment is a legal principle, the default in most U.S. states, where an employer or employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason or no reason at all, as long as the reason isn't illegal. Exceptions to at-will employment include illegal reasons for termination, such as discrimination or retaliation, and situations where a contract or collective bargaining agreement exists.

I'm not a lawyer, but wonder if he could on the grounds of "retaliation" given he had nothing to do with his ex-wife's post. Can that argument be made that TXRH was retaliating for a post completely not of his doing? Probably a question for one of our seasoned attorneys on this forum.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Maybe our definition of "significant" differs, but when you are talking about a hundred million, or more, Republicans a pretty small percentage of people is a significant issue. and IIRC it was still around 20% or more. thats not bragging territory.

how is it a weak position to be counter to both major parties and maintaining your beliefs? you are the one who will fold to whatever Trump tells you. before Trump it was any old Republican you probably now think is weak that you kowtowed for.

Lol, you know nothing about me. Saying that I'll fall in line with whatever Trump does is laughable. You are weak. Trying to equate what the majority of democrats belive shows how weak you are. It's not the same. The democrats should be labeled as a terrorist organization for what they've done over the last 10 years. But, enjoy that middle ground.

 

[Sea Ray]

Thanks. I think if anyone looked into it, they would find about a 20 to 1 ratio of names I am called to names I call others.
This is the perfect thread for considering why that may be.

I agree with your numbers. I don't know if that's because you have standards or if it's because you know you're really outnumbered here. I'm on a far left site on occasion and there I get called names daily.

BTW Lawgator is also not a name caller

But in the last election there was far more namecalling coming from the left. Trump was called a Nazi, white supremacist, racist and pretty much every name under the sun. I did not see such language describing Kamala

 

[KB5252]

I have to somewhat defer to your summary because I have not watched a ton of his commentary. Before the shooting, I imagine I had likely heard of him but his media presence seems to have really taken hold in circles I obviously don't travel so I am just not that familiar. What I have seen since just makes me shake my head.

But I will ask you this: would you agree that for a certain portion of his routine audience, they tuned in not for his more moderated comments or any centrist views, but for the fireworks?` The same is true of people spouting left wing points of view.

And, this is what I don't like about the current state of discourse -- and I imagine you agree with me -- the way people and platforms make money off of all of this division is to promote it, to actively ratchet it up. The nation gets angrier and less tolerant, less willing to hear form the other side, and they laugh all the way to the bank.

Much of this is true, and Charlie certainly monetized his movement. But his message was and he stated over and over..... paraphrasing I seek out other ideas because the day we quit taking to each other and communicating ideas is the day society breaks down, civil war etc.

To your last sentence he actively fought back on that. Watch some of the really positive welcoming messages of his others have posted here. it may make you willing to listen to more.

Bottom line is the cherry picked 3 or 4 really bad interactions aren't in any way indicative of his interactions with others.

 

[KB5252]

Can you sue for wrongful termination in a right to work state?

Yes, in certain situations you can if you are discriminated against carrying certain protections provided under law. Like pregnancy, race etc.

 

[LouderVol]

It didn’t go beyond Christian sects when it was written. There were no Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Daoist, Taoist, etc. There was a small Jewish sect in Rhode Island? that George Washington had to pen a letter to his he locals urging them to be left alone. It was written with the implicit understanding that it was a nation of Christians. Free exercise thereoff meant that the general government (Congress) could not limit free exercise. It did not apply to the states.

There were atheist/agnostic FFs. trying to say it was only Christians is a lie.
Jefferson was a Deist. look at his modifications in the "Jefferson Bible". Paine, Allen, Palmer are some others.

the Constitution protects any and all religious minorities, or majority for that matter. its like saying the only guns in the country were flintlocks, so modern cartridge based guns aren't protected by the 2A. all of those religions you mentioned existed at the time of the Constitution, if they wanted to exclude one they could have.

its a back door argument to circumvent the Constitution. its wrong when the Dems do it, its wrong when the Rs do it.

the treaty of tripoli states that we weren't founded as a christian nation.