swampfoxfan
Fox trapper
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2017
- Messages
- 6,575
- Likes
- 5,988
And feeding African children that should die of disease or starvation.
So by my standard, okay?By your standard Kimmel never said Kirk was maga.
I and most would agree he was speaking of all black⁰ women. How does a college dropout qualify to doubt the abilities of college graduates? You believe Barack Obama dei hired Michelle? How about his comment on black female customer service agents?
this type of analogy is so comical. If you are using "jesus" to try to prove political points then you don't understand anything about his life. I see people who don't even go to church or call themselves Christian love to make comments on what Jesus would or wouldn't have said about modern day politics. it's ignorantAnd Charlie was a devout Christian that loved immagrants as Jesus commanded.
A little boy at a Chiefs game a few years back had his face painted black and red and got more national backlash by the left.I mean you aren't entirely wrong here. He dressed entirely in black face and no one has said anything about it which is odd (not that I think he should have to). Hadn't thought about that skit in a long time.
This what he said, verbatim: "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” He did not explicitly say Robinson was MAGA. Folks, we are through the looking glass now.
Jimmy Kimmel didn't say he was one of them. In not as many words, he said that MAGA members were trying to place Tyler Robinson in every negative affiliation they could .... except their own.
I understand the confusion. He didn't articulate himself well at all. Also, I'm not condoning what he said. It was in poor taste and inappropriate, while the country is so bitterly divided.
Such a source can’t come public. It’s being reported by many sources including left leaning CNN and NY Times so I think that adds to its credibility. They wouldn’t all report it unless they were confident in its veracityAnother poster alluded to the "hot monologue". Maybe they saw the same thing you did.
The only thing I don't like about this is the unnamed source. Erodes credibility.
Understood. I already try to have skepticism with 'news'. unnamed sources simply heightens the distrust.Such a source can’t come public. It’s being reported by many sources including left leaning CNN and NY Times so I think that adds to its credibility. They wouldn’t all report it unless they were confident in its veracity
If you say so. Matthew 25this type of analogy is so comical. If you are using "jesus" to try to prove political points then you don't understand anything about his life. I see people who don't even go to church or call themselves Christian love to make comments on what Jesus would or wouldn't have said about modern day politics. it's ignorant