Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

[KB5252]

That was before the days of DEI though.

That's true, not sure what they're taking about. Maybe programs or policy before DEI? I remember some colleges having programs that preferred foreign and other minority students, especially at private colleges.

I'm not sure.

 

[luthervol]

So if I start a thread for you, you'll deal with these difficult questions?

Maybe @McDad can start that poll, and you and I can do this there.

I would be tempted. Unless you call them difficult questions....that's a non-starter.

 

[LouderVol]

None of that is indicative of dictatorship. That's ridiculous.

Specifically, The SCOTUS killed the attempted bump-stock ban, and will weigh in on the Birthright Citizenship issue. From what I've been studying up on, he may have some valid points there--especially considering that a liberal lower court just made a ruling that would support his side on this very issue--i.e. an interpretation of what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. If I get the time, I'll try to find a reference for you.

I don't recall him ever ignoring the courts. I recall all of you guys claiming that he was, when in actuality his DoJ was fighting cases through the legal mechanisms. Again... Proper checks and balances.

As usual, you discuss and debate via hyperbole.

he was ignoring courts early on with the immigration stuff. him getting called out and "balanced" isn't a reason to believe Trump is looking out for the best of the constitution.

how is stating that ICEs budget is bigger, or that Trump uses EO, or that he has done anti-Constitutional stuff in the past hyperbole?

I used facts to support why I don't trust him, and how he is pushing us towards a worse future for the country. I said it to someone else, Trump is just taking the next series of bites; very few complain about both sides doing it. you rely on deflection to excuse it on one side while being sure to point out every attempt by the other side.

 

[LouderVol]

We aren't going back to the Constitution. That train has left the station. Ditto individual rights.

yeah, and I have a problem with that. from both sides. Trump doesn't get a pass because he wears a red jersey.

 

[McDad]

So if I start a thread for you, you'll deal with these difficult questions?

Maybe @McDad can start that poll, and you and I can do this there.

I will start a poll about topics or for fun.

But I will not start a poll about another poster here.

I will participate if the poster starts a poll about themselves, though.

 

[wtmvol]

This is getting danger level.

This is getting worse than Obama and Biden’s attacks on free speech.

I would suggest that if you consider yourself a Christian and conservative to call your representatives because once the freedom of speech is destroyed then freedom of religion will be next.

Agree. I don't like this stuff one bit. You don't think Democrats will go directly after conservatives once they're back in power? They're going to say Republicans set the precedent. There isn't going to be too much further to go to get to China's social credit score. It will just depend who has power at the moment. If private companies want to terminate people fine. But the government needs to stay out of it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I would be tempted. Unless you call them difficult questions....that's a non-starter.

We'll consider them difficult until you decide that you can answer them. If that's a non-starter, so be it.

 

[CobbVol]

More educators ... less activists.

From the article:

A modern-day Socrates, Charlie Kirk bearded the lion in its den by going onto college campuses to challenge the ideas of students, professors, and anyone else who happened to be there through respectful dialogue. And like Socrates, Charlie was so successful in changing the hearts and minds of young people that the left had to kill him to shut him up.

On cue, Democratic leaders offered tepid denunciations of the political violence they inspire before deflecting to President Trump, Jan. 6, and, of course, gutting the Second Amendment.

At the forefront of these demonic celebrations were members of the educational establishment. While both school districts and state governments are taking action against these ghouls, the damage has already been done. Teachers do not just impart knowledge; they also shape our children’s characters. A system that has granted such power to murder-loving ideologues cannot be redeemed; it must be destroyed and remade.

Stop Sending Kids To Schools Where Teachers Celebrate Murder

A system that has granted such power to murder-loving ideologues cannot be redeemed; it must be destroyed and remade.

thefederalist.com

 

[apevol]

We'll consider them difficult until you decide that you can answer them If that's a non-starter, so be it. You've found your excuse.

barney is better than hulk so ill be on Luther's side

 

[Orange_Crush]

he was ignoring courts early on with the immigration stuff. him getting called out and "balanced" isn't a reason to believe Trump is looking out for the best of the constitution.

how is stating that ICEs budget is bigger, or that Trump uses EO, or that he has done anti-Constitutional stuff in the past hyperbole?

I used facts to support why I don't trust him, and how he is pushing us towards a worse future for the country. I said it to someone else, Trump is just taking the next series of bites; very few complain about both sides doing it. you rely on deflection to excuse it on one side while being sure to point out every attempt by the other side.

You're changing the argument. It wasn't about your trust. I was about him trying to act like a Dictator. You claimed he's trying to bypass the constitution and ignored the courts. He did no such thing. His DoJ stood their ground in court, and if we're thinking about the "turn that plane around", the court god smacked by the SCOTUS and THAT JUDGE tried to end-around and ignore the SCOTUS's ruling to sit down and shut up.

 

[EasternVol]

That's true, not sure what they're taking about. Maybe programs or policy before DEI? I remember some colleges having programs that preferred foreign and other minority students, especially at private colleges.

I'm not sure.

I seriously doubt that she would have had trouble getting into a good school based on merit.
I took Kirk's comments to be a weasely way to imply that black people are stupid but in a way he thought would let him deny his intent.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's true, not sure what they're taking about. Maybe programs or policy before DEI? I remember some colleges having programs that preferred foreign and other minority students, especially at private colleges.

I'm not sure.

I believe that it was called "Affirmative Action" back then. That's the phrase that Charlie claimed the four women of color used when he responsed, I do believe.

 

[luthervol]

We'll consider them difficult until you decide that you can answer them. If that's a non-starter, so be it.

So we're already at an impasse, that didn't take long.

A refusal to answer a ridiculously worded question is not in the same universe as not being able to answer a hard question.
If you want to start a thread with some well worded questions.....go for it.

 

[midnight orange]

yeah, and I have a problem with that. from both sides. Trump doesn't get a pass because he wears a red jersey.

No one gets a pass. Especially the American electorate.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So we're already at an impasse, that didn't take long.

A refusal to answer a ridiculously worded question is not in the same universe as not being able to answer a hard question.
If you want to start a thread with some well worded questions.....go for it.

I am absolutely flabbergasted. I sure didn't see that coming.

You do you.

 

[KB5252]

I seriously doubt that she would have had trouble getting into a good school based on merit.
I took Kirk's comments to be a weasely way to imply that black people are stupid but in a way he thought would let him deny his intent.

I mean it's possible, it maybe a comment made in the heat if the moment with venom? We all get angry but I'd have to watch that particular video. Can you link it?

 

[luthervol]

I am absolutely flabbergasted. I sure didn't see that coming.

You do you.

So does that mean no thread?
A little bit sad.

 

[LouderVol]

You're changing the argument. It wasn't about your trust. I was about him trying to act like a Dictator. You claimed he's trying to bypass the constitution and ignored the courts. He did no such thing. His DoJ stood their ground in court, and if we're thinking about the "turn that plane around", the court god smacked by the SCOTUS and THAT JUDGE tried to end-around and ignore the SCOTUS's ruling to sit down and shut up.

so two wrongs, by the judge and by Trump, cancel each other out?

why not call out bad as bad?

the issue wasn't turning the plane around, the issue was that the plane took off at all. you are deflecting.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So does that mean no thread?
A little bit sad.

Feel free to make it.

This is you trying to act like you want to have the discussion? Really?

So we're already at an impasse, that didn't take long.

A refusal to answer a ridiculously worded question is not in the same universe as not being able to answer a hard question.
If you want to start a thread with some well worded questions.....go for it.

I'm right here. Nobody but you have complained about having the discussion here. So, if you want to have the discussion, I'm elated. Let's just continue it here. If you can't comprehend what I'm asking, you can help me make it more comprehensible to you.

OK. Insults are not a way of changing hearts and minds.

If you change your mind about walking away from hard questions...

Let's try it this way.

(1a) What are humans and how did we get here? We can work from there.







On the "wrong", morality issue...

(1b) You've indicated that as society changed and slavery became immoral, society evolved to improve. That's a comparative statement, so you'll need to let us in on the standard that you are judging against. If a non-slavery society is more moral than slavery society, what standard are you using to make that judgment? It would need to be a standard outside of society, and outside of yourself?

(2b) You've indicated that society defines morality. If you seek to change society, what would that make you? And why? (If morality is a social agreement, and you are trying to break that agreement...?)

(3b) If you were talking to the mother of a toddler, and she asked you whether raping and eating her toddler is objectively wrong at all times and at all places, no matter the opinion of one person or all persons, what would you tell her? That it is wrong merely as an evolving social construct, and it is wrong in a similar way that it is wrong when a dog does not circle before pooping? Do you have grandkids, by the way?


These questions work together, in case you haven't started noticing. What is a human? Merely the product of time and chance? A weak, hairless animal? A blip on the universe's timescale with no objective or lasting worth? Merely a meat computer that should be treated the same as your laptop? Use it for whatever you find beneficial, and throw it in the dumpster if it stops serving its purpose? If not, why not?

What is a human? Just the product of unguided change over time via random gene mutations? Then what makes you think that you evolved the ability to correctly perceive and interpret reality around you? What part of "Survival of the Fittest" gave you reason to believe that you developed these capabilities?



It seems that, if you want to intellectually and morally change people around you, you should be ready to defend your underpinnings if they lift the hood of your worldview and start asking questions. Right?



I belabor these things because I'd like to weigh how firm a foundation your philosophical worldview is to be trusted as an agent of change, whether here or in society at large. One would think you would invite that, what with your desire to be a catalyst of change.

I appreciate your patience.

I'm perfectly happy to have the conversation but will not beg you to do so. The ball is in your court, and I'll be perfectly content either way.

 

[GVF]

1 more thing.

When your side is winning, shut up and let the other side keep destroying themselves.

Trump should let any idiot speak on the 20% side, but no he has to try to outdo the idiots on the 20% side with something more idiotic.

Well, he's always had the childish side. My hope in helping elect him in Round1 was that he could be effective AND presedential, but the actions from the left that were enabling his childish side never stopped. To be fair, a good bit of his schtick was self defense too. He has his moments but the cookie jar is always full of tempting treats. Never have regretted my votes. The sad state of american politics is that for 16+- years now he is/has been the best candidate available.

As for options next time with Vance and/or Rubio, I'm beginning to think Rubio could be a strong contender, and the optics I see is Vance seems to lay low when allowed so he doesn't narrow his possible field of support. Could be interesting in Trump's lame duck year how Vance platforms himself. I think Rubio already has the proper distance here he can pull support from both ends of the right and a decent cluster of the middle. He will the broader appeal to the undecided. A more mature and seasoned Vaveck would be strong. Just don't know if he will ever recover from crumbling. He did peak my attention. He seems to be taking the quiet road for now and we'll have to see where he pokes his head up again.

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[GVF]

Luther 101 act like Confucius, refuse to be nailed down on anything concrete. Act high and mighty for being an “educator” (like it’s an impossible thing to be) and he even threw in the “I’ve never heard of Kirk before” BS he did with Michael Brown story years ago

He’s predictable I’ll give him that

The deal with Luther is you have to keep him out of the PF and distract him from his TDS. Then he becomes someone you'd have a decent dinner and beer with. (Based on past conversations in other threads where this type of stuff wasn't breeched). But, the second he peeks in that window...

 

[McDad]

View attachment 774576

Oof. That's gonna be a sore point for some.

 

[GVF]

I think the right is one election away from this too.

Trump has been pushing further and further away from the conservative core that built his support. its fine for him, but for the right in general its going to be problematic.

It was a necessary election win though regardless. No one else was ready, and certainly the left had no answer for hte right person in our atmosphere. And he was the only one that was going to do any of the dirty work that is also needed. I always viewed and welcomed him as the catalyst, but never saw him as the long game. But, no one was ready to assume the next phase.

 

[volbeast33]

It may have already been covered but how was Michelle Obama a DEI recipient?

Those four women came out and stated that they got to where they are through affirmative action. It is what the discussion was about.