Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

[GVF]

"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.

Kind of disagree there. Keeping total separation as I think you are intending it leaves only one sect to run government, which is Atheistic people, also a religion, so now you have no viable people for government under separation fo state because technically any belief or lack there of is an identity to a belief which leaves no one qualified for elections. Having mixed governing prevents a .gov identity (local/state/federal) from swaying from one group to another. Keeps the government from proclaiming you will be Church of England and you'll like it. Free exercise just means I can be CoC, you can be Methodist, Billy Bob can be evangelical, Rico can be Catholic, Demon child can be atheist, yet we can all have a vested and equal interest in how our elected officials govern for the citizenry.

 

[LouderVol]

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.

lol, there it is.

I will gladly admit I am wrong if you can point to lets say 3 or 4 of your posts calling out Trump on different topics. I did a quick search and didn't find anything.

I WILL enjoy the middle ground of not calling half the nation terrorist, which apparently comes with a extra-judicial death sentence.

don't worry I will be right here when the Dems take over, and label the other half the terrorists and come after you.

 

[TheDeeble]

View attachment 774160

He's speaking with voters. People that will vote and shape the future of this country. If a 30 year old non college grad is too much for them, then how can they be expected to think for themselves when faced with leftist professors teaching the classes?

If someone wants to speak with younger American voters, then the colleges they attend is as good a place as any.

 

[InVOLuntary]

lol, there it is.

I will gladly admit I am wrong if you can point to lets say 3 or 4 of your posts calling out Trump on different topics. I did a quick search and didn't find anything.

I WILL enjoy the middle ground of not calling half the nation terrorist, which apparently comes with a extra-judicial death sentence.

don't worry I will be right here when the Dems take over, and label the other half the terrorists and come after you.

Oh I'm 100% sure you will find the middle ground.

There's a lot I disagree with Trump on. I've made it perfectly clear that I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils. Hope you don't scratch your balls straddling that fence.

 

[Orange_Crush]

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.

You are free to your opinion. That's not what it says. It actually says the exact opposite per not limiting the free expression of religion.

I also don't believe that we should be enforcing everyone to be Christian. As stated, I also don't believe it is constitutional to limit Christians' political activities or the passage of laws just because the underlying source of the morality is found in the Bible.

Are you seeing anyone here trying to force people to go to church on Sundays and Wednesdays?

 

[whodeycin85]

When and where have you had it shoved in your face? I have traveled extensively here in the U.S. and abroad and have never had it shoved in my face. Then again, I'm not frequenting places where it would likely occur regularly either

Just wondered

Sorry you response got lost in the shuffle..my experience with there is thru my child....I have lived in 3 states in 5 years since getting sick
..Florida, Tennessee and Michigan...my son is 13 now in 8th grade. In Florida the school he was at held 3 different drag time hours..it wasn't story time it was just they were there interacting with kids. My son came home a told us that the 2nd time the trans people came that there was dancing a twerking and he told me that 1 make wore panties and nothing else like mother's..he was 8. He was pulled and homeschooled from there..till we moved to TN.

In Tennessee is wasn't the school this time but his best friend of 5 year who suddenly became trans and demanded to be called a female by my son...my son refused and that relation failed..later we learned that he has been accused of assaulting another "trans student," no idea what ever became of it but now that kid is back to being a boy...then we loved to Michigan to be closer to my dad because when getting to a transplant I was told that both members had to be present at the meeting which was a but he we are.
Here is been a school teacher who tried to get kid to attend drag shows after school for extra credit and even offered a whole grade change...and there have been 2 active shooter at his middle school who were trans but thankfully stopped after the old principal was fired for pushing lgtbq on students .the vice was promoted and he has done all he can't to keep that outta the schools.

My story is antedoal, take it or leave it..up to you...but my story is not unique as I can promise almost every parent which a kid has had to deal with some kinda trans issue at some point...that is in your face.

 

[TheDeeble]

error post*

 

[Vol737]

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

Unbelievable. Those are some really dark souls and they probably think they are perfectly normal. Seriously need to be in a padded room, in a straight jacket and infused with lots of drugs. That's some serious mental illness right there.

 

[LouderVol]

Kind of disagree there. Keeping total separation as I think you are intending it leaves only one sect to run government, which is Atheistic people, also a religion, so now you have no viable people for government under separation fo state because technically any belief or lack there of is an identity to a belief which leaves no one qualified for elections. Having mixed governing prevents a .gov identity (local/state/federal) from swaying from one group to another. Keeps the government from proclaiming you will be Church of England and you'll like it. Free exercise just means I can be CoC, you can be Methodist, Billy Bob can be evangelical, Rico can be Catholic, Demon child can be atheist, yet we can all have a vested and equal interest in how our elected officials govern for the citizenry.

I haven't spoken on my intentions. I have just spoken about what is in the Constitution, and I was asking what CK's stance was.

I have looked at his website, his shows website, and even Turning Point's website, and not found anything explicit on the separation of church and state. his videos are all over the place, and without any real explanation of what he means. what I do see all over the place is that he valued individual freedoms, and a small government. both of which would support more of a separation of church and state than less of one.

 

[midnight orange]

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.

Absolutely wrong. There were no agnostic founders (in public anyway) Jefferson was deist and caught a ton of sh-t for it.

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.

It wasn’t the constitution for the “religions of the world” or the “people of the world”. It was for mostly English Americans

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.

I’m not religious and certainly not a Christian Nationalist but history is history. I’m not trying to jam a progressive “founding” upon the motives of those that lived 200 years ago.

Who cares what the Treaty of Tripoli says- relevance 0

 

[LouderVol]

Oh I'm 100% sure you will find the middle ground.

There's a lot I disagree with Trump on. I've made it perfectly clear that I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils. Hope you don't scratch your balls straddling that fence.

i don't know about you, but my balls are pretty itchy. sometimes it the left one that needs scratching, some times its the right one. I don't know how you mono-balls do it.

 

[appvol]

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.

I posted this earlier in the thread. Has a few bad words in it

 

[InVOLuntary]

i don't know about you, but my balls are pretty itchy. sometimes it the left one that needs scratching, some times its the right one. I don't know how you mono-balls do it.

I'm sure your balls are blue.

 

[Vol737]

Amazing how many teachers are having to be told that you don’t get to publicly condone assassination in your classroom

They also need to be told, "There's the door, you're fired."

 

[LouderVol]

You are free to your opinion. That's not what it says. It actually says the exact opposite per not limiting the free expression of religion.

I also don't believe that we should be enforcing everyone to be Christian. As stated, I also don't believe it is constitutional to limit Christians' political activities or the passage of laws just because the underlying source of the morality is found in the Bible.

Are you seeing anyone here trying to force people to go to church on Sundays and Wednesdays?

no, just like I haven't seen anyone say you can't go to church on Sundays or Wednesdays.

I am not saying limit them, I just saying they can't limit others either. its an equal protection. the Christians rights stop when another person's start, and vice versa. its not a one way street some are pretending it is.

 

[whodeycin85]

The problem they will run into is company precedent. Have they been terminating others for awfull crap their spouses have posted online?

Isn't this basically what the left tried to do to Clarence Thomas??
Not sure how I feel about this one..but it's not sitting right..but I believe I understand the reason by Texas Roadhouse.

 

[CubsFanTN]

He's speaking with voters. People that will vote and shape the future of this country. If a 30 year old non college grad is too much for them, then how can they be expected to think for themselves when faced with leftist professors teaching the classes?

If someone wants to speak with younger American voters, then the colleges they attend is as good a place as any.

It’s not a new argument either. I saw people all throughout his career say it was nothing more than a rigged carnival game and “if I could get up there, I’d show him.” No one ever did.

 

[GAVol]

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.

How is that rhetoric different from calling all Republicans Nazis?

 

[Peradox1K]

It’s not a new argument either. I saw people all throughout his career say it was nothing more than a rigged carnival game and “if I could get up there, I’d show him.” No one ever did.

I'll bet millions that if someone was exactly like Kirk except a left-winger, and what happened happens to the leftie... Dems seek to outlaw Republican party, it's almost always our fault, apparently.

 

[LouderVol]

Absolutely wrong. There were no agnostic founders (in public anyway) Jefferson was deist and caught a ton of sh-t for it.

It wasn’t the constitution for the “religions of the world” or the “people of the world”. It was for mostly English Americans

I’m not religious and certainly not a Christian Nationalist but history is history. I’m not trying to jam a progressive “founding” upon the motives of those that lived 200 years ago.

Who cares what the Treaty of Tripoli says- relevance 0

there largely wasn't a recognized term of "agnostic" for them to identify themselves as. if you go read their letters its pretty clear they weren't good ole southern baptists.

the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified by those same FFs, unanimously. there are multiple official government documents that back up that we aren't a Christian nation, and the best argument you have is that the Constitution doesn't say EITHER way.

if you want to change the Constitution to say that we are a Christian nation, there is a way to do that. until that change is made, we aren't, and never have been one.

 

[Peradox1K]

there largely wasn't a recognized term of "agnostic" for them to identify themselves as. if you go read their letters its pretty clear they weren't good ole southern baptists.

the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified by those same FFs, unanimously. there are multiple official government documents that back up that we aren't a Christian nation, and the best argument you have is that the Constitution doesn't say EITHER way.

if you want to change the Constitution to say that we are a Christian nation, there is a way to do that. until that change is made, we aren't, and never have been one.

This is TECHNICALLY true, but polls suggest that the majority of people here are Christian. So, COULD we be called a Christian country? In a way, but it's not our official religion. Ours is the Second Amendment.

 

[whodeycin85]

Not really. Recent polling shows over 50% of democrats support assassinations of right wing politicos. We are not the same. Trying to appear in the middle just to be in the middle is weak.

Is that NCRI poll of so that question was specifically killing Trump...not politicos..that only seems to be about 25% of Dems.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm sure your balls are blue.

only if I am pulling a picasso.

 

[LouderVol]

This is TECHNICALLY true, but polls suggest that the majority of people here are Christian. So, COULD we be called a Christian country? In a way, but it's not our official religion. Ours is the Second Amendment.

there is a difference in a country being made up of Christians, and it being a Christian nation.

the Constitution is written to protect the minorities, even when one side loses an election, they still have protected rights.

and the nation doesn't change based on what is popular, unless its big enough to add an amendment. this is the argument that has been used in the supreme court thread multiple times when luther and monty types try to say the SC doesn't represent the will of the people. they aren't supposed to, neither is the Constitution.

 

[n_huffhines]

He's speaking with voters. People that will vote and shape the future of this country. If a 30 year old non college grad is too much for them, then how can they be expected to think for themselves when faced with leftist professors teaching the classes?

If someone wants to speak with younger American voters, then the colleges they attend is as good a place as any.

I get that you like that he's out there recruiting soldiers to your cause, but I see so many in here praising his method of debate, and he used cheap parlor tricks. We want better discourse in this country. He influenced a generation of kids who think this is how you engage.

His whole schtick was "prove me wrong." It's called the burden of proof fallacy. Everything he says starts with that premise, and this is out of bounds because it's generally hard to prove a negative. It's crazy that a whole country can look at this "prove me wrong" method and not immediately see the problem with it. It's right there in the name. He was telling us what he was doing before he did it. We are stupid.