Charlie Kirk

[lurker]

Where is your outrage and response directed at ss12? Oh’ that's right, you can’t eat your own, now can you. Quite hypocritical if you ask me.

[Tyy7777]

Question is —------- Are you ready for the long term reaction and repercussions? Like the ones we are seeing right now with the Cancel Culture getting canceled, and people getting fired. Which I think is very ironic.

It's not ironic, it just proves that MAGA's love for Freedom of Speech and their hatred for Cancel Culture is a load of sh1t.

They like freedom of speech until it's something they disagree with. You don't get to say something is bad and then do said thing because the other side does it.

Charlie Kirk didn't believe in freedom of speech. He called for Mehdi Hasan, a British born American citizen, to be DEPORTED after expressing views his views on COVID. Here's the quote:

MEHDI HASAN: So we need to reassert what the actual truth of the matter is, especially if we are to be prepared for the next pandemic when it inevitably comes.

CHARLIE KIRK: Wow, who is that neurotic lunatic? Who is that guy? Send him back to the country he came from? Holy cow! Get him off TV. Revoke his visa.

Does that sound like someone who cared for freedom of speech?

Turning Point USA also run a "Professor Watchlist", where they list professors that disagree with the views of Turning Point so they can be harassed.

The whole "Freedom of Speech" point us such a 1ucking joke!

[Tyy7777]

• You aren't going to change my opinion, or my mind.
• Resorting to talking down and belittling me. I remove “bias” every day.
• What fact? I have yet to see ONE fact from you, just your opinion.
• You loath our President, just as you loath Charlie Kirk.
• I support our President, just as I support Charlie Kirk.

What’s your point in all of this that ALL of US didn't already know from your post #3 in this thread?

You've shown time and time again you can't remove bias because even when fact is right in front of you it is trumped by your opinion.

I have constantly backed up claims on this forum with fact and went above and beyond to prove my points.

[Tyy7777]

Where is your outrage and response directed at ss12? Oh’ that's right, you can’t eat your own, now can you. Quite hypocritical if you ask me.

I condemned his post regarding Kirk.

I actually can't stand most of the vocal left.

[Morgs153]

I completely disagree with Pam Bondi or any of the others who are calling for some sort of sanction(s) for what they deem to be "hate speech". I have heard many prominent conservatives also doing the same. Bondi (and I've called her a midwit before) is way out over her skis on this one and hers is more a minority view among conservatives. I get it, the emotions are high. But when emotions are high is usually when the worst decisions get made.

I am pretty much an absolutist on 1A. Hate speech is speech. If public perception and public opinion wants to sanction terrible, gross, insensitive, hateful speech, then by all means - let the public make that decision. Do not involve the government in that decision. I don't want to see this nation rolling down the road of England where people are getting fined and jailed for things posted on forums. More people have been sanctioned and locked up in England than in Russia for free speech issues and it is by orders of magnitude. No thanks.

The boycott, divest, and sanction crowd was pretty much birthed on the left many years ago. They were often the ones trying to organize against people and entities which didn't align with their causes. Brendan Eich created Mozilla Firefox but he was forced to resign from his own company when it was found he donated to political causes which supported traditional marriage (California Prop 8). This was more than ten years ago. Donald Trump had barely stepped off the escalator when retailers all over the country started pulling Ivanka's brand from their stores because of pressure from the left. Here in Wisconsin when Act 10 was going through the statehouse in Madison the hired head of the WPPA (my parent union at the time) tried to tell the rank and file law enforcement officers in the state that we were supposed to boycott Kwik Trip stores because their owners had made contributions to Scott Walker. Smartly though our membership roundly told him that would not happen.

So if some person, or some group wants to spend time purveying the internet looking for mean posts and evil, gross, insensitive, and hateful things posted in regards to the reaction of Charlie Kirk's political assassination and then aggregate that information to people to help them make decisions, I'm fine with that. That game has been played for a long long time on the other side and they thought it was completely fine to do so. The religion of the woke left has never been one of forgiveness or redemption when they caught their social media sinners.

If some people are getting fired or suspended for their evil, gross, insensitive, and hateful things they thought was cute to post, I'm fine with that too. I came from a world where I probably had less freedom of speech than the average American. I never had a Facebook account and still don't. Why? I was in law enforcement. I knew that something as simple as a shared meme or a "like" that offended the wrong person could potentially get me called on the carpet, maybe suspended, or worse. It wasn't worth the risk. The uppers in my chain of command spoke for the agency and it was not my job so I had to watch what I publicly said and I knew that and that was pretty much on everything. Everything.

Now there are teachers, professors, students, health care workers, business owners who are getting real world negative reactions for their sh!t posts they've made regarding Charlie Kirk and some of them are finding the unemployment line. I'm okay with that. Especially if they were paid or compensated in some way from the government dole. Because when I was paid from the government dole I knew enough to keep it to myself and keep from posting things which could get me in trouble. That is the other side of freedom of speech, the fact that there is no freedom from consequences. You go too far, you might get kicked out of school, lose your job, lose a large part of a customer base, lose a TV show gig, etc. If you do, that'll learn ya. Maybe that's part of learning how to be a decent person and citizen.

But it should never be the decision of big government.

[Tyy7777]

What just happened to Jimmy Kimmel is very scary.

We are now the United States of Russia. We have entered government censorship. First Colbert, now Kimmel.

Kimmel simply commented on how MAGA have used Kirk's death to score points. He didn't celebrate violence, in fact he condemned it. That comment has led to his show being pulled off the air. He expressed a political opinion, not hate speech.

This is NOT just an ABC decision. Earlier this week, the FCC chair threatened to revoke ABC's broadcasting license over the remarks. Trump also made some tweets if I'm not mistaken.

Keep in mind, just a few days ago a Fox News host said we should lethally inject homeless people. Where was the FCC then? This is very worrying. Straight out of the playbook of the world's dictators.

[lurker]

Ty, we aren’t agreeing on much here so lets move on and not make it personal. We aren't shooting at each other so we have that going for each other.

[lurker]

Straight out of the playbook of the world's dictators.

You can use the words, “New World Order”, it’s OK. Clayton used them all the time on here well before you came along.

[Morgs153]

So it wasn't the comments where he tried to say (err joke maybe?) that Robinson was actually MAGA and that it was MAGA who killed Kirk? Even after the facts are coming out showing something very much different.

So it wasn't the comments (err joke maybe) where he compared the political assassination of Charlie Kirk to a four year old losing a goldfish?

Some of the first backlash came from affiliates who did not want to air the show. Although FCC guy chimed in on the matter my guess is a ABC execs told Jimmy - you need to fix this and apologize and Jimmy said he wouldn't. So, it got this far and maybe this is just what Jimmy wanted.

We'll see. If it is genuinely complete government pressure, I'm not for it.

I really miss the days of Johnny Carson.

[Tyy7777]

You can use the words, “New World Order”, it’s OK. Clayton used them all the time on here well before you came along.

You don't see a problem with government censorship?

Boy, you need to learn some history.

[Tyy7777]

So it wasn't the comments where he tried to say (err joke maybe?) that Robinson was actually MAGA and that it was MAGA who killed Kirk? Even after the facts are coming out showing something very much different.

So it wasn't the comments (err joke maybe) where he compared the political assassination of Charlie Kirk to a four year old losing a goldfish?

Some of the first backlash came from affiliates who did not want to air the show. Although FCC guy chimed in on the matter my guess is a ABC execs told Jimmy - you need to fix this and apologize and Jimmy said he wouldn't. So, it got this far and maybe this is just what Jimmy wanted.

We'll see. If it is genuinely complete government pressure, I'm not for it.

I really miss the days of Johnny Carson.

He made the point that Republicans constantly painted him anything but their own. We don't really know his leanings.

He didn't compare Kirk to a goldfish. Watch the video. He showed how Trump showed zero care when asked about Kirk and that's why he made that comparison.

If you don't think it's government intervention then you are just naive. The head of the FCC said YESTERDAY that he'd consider revoking their license or something along those lines. Trump would have been in their ear. He was tweeting earlier in the week. It's blatant. Same as Colbert albeit different circumstances.

Jimmy would have folded.

[Tyy7777]

Ty, we aren’t agreeing on much here so lets move on and not make it personal. We aren't shooting at each other so we have that going for each other.

I don't intend to make it personal but you consistently put feeling over fact it does make having a debate hard.

[Tyy7777]

Let's allow a real president to speak! Lurker I know you're a big fan

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: Well, we are certainly at an inflection point, not just around political violence, but there are a host of larger trends that we have to be concerned about. I think it is important for us, at the outset, to acknowledge that political violence is not new. It has happened at certain periods in our history, but it is something that it is anathema to what it means to be a democratic country.

And regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, what happened to Charlie Kirk was horrific and a tragedy. What happened, as you mentioned, to the state legislators in Minnesota, that is horrific. It is a tragedy.

And there are no ifs, ands or buts about it, the central premise of our democratic system is that we have to be able to disagree and have sometimes really contentious debates without resort to violence. And when it happens to some but even if you think they’re, quote, unquote, on the other side of the argument, that’s a threat to all of us. And we have to be clear and forthright in condemning them.

Now, that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a debate about the ideas that people who were victims of political violence were promoting. And so, I’ve noticed that there’s been some confusion, I think, around this lately, and frankly, coming from the White House and some of the other positions of authority that suggest, even before we had determined who the perpetrator of this evil act was, that somehow we’re going to identify an enemy. We’re going to suggest that somehow that enemy was at fault, and we are then going to use that as a rationale for trying to silence discussion around who we are as a country and what direction we should go. And that’s a mistake as well.

And so, look, obviously I didn’t know Charlie Kirk. I was generally aware of some of his ideas. I think those ideas were wrong, but that doesn’t negate the fact that what happened was a tragedy and that I mourn for him and his family.

He’s a young man with two small children and a wife who obviously — and a huge number of friends and supporters who cared about him. And so, we have to extend grace to people during their period of mourning and shock.

We can also, at the same time, say that I disagree with the idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake. That’s not me politicizing the issue. It’s making an observation about who are we as a country. I can say that I disagree with the suggestion that my wife or Justice Jackson does not have adequate brain processing power. I can say that I disagree that Martin Luther King was awful. I can disagree with some of the broader suggestions that liberals and Democrats are promoting conspiracy to displace whites and replace them by ushering in illegal immigrants.

Those are all topics that we have to be able to discuss honestly and forthrightly, while we still insist that in that process of debate, we respect other people’s right to say things that we profoundly disagree with. That’s how we should approach this.

Now, the last point I’ll make on this or building on a point I made earlier, I’ve been very impressed with Governor Cox in Utah and how he’s approached some of these issues. I suspect Governor Cox and I disagree on a whole bunch of stuff. He is a Republican, self-professed conservative Republican, but in his response to this tragedy, as well as his history of how he engages with people who are political adversaries, he has shown, I think, that it is possible for us to disagree while abiding by a basic code of how we should engage in public debate.

I think your own governor here, Josh Shapiro, has done the same thing.

When I was president in the aftermath of tragedies, when Dylann Roof went into a Black church and based on his own words, shot a group of folks who were engaged in bible study and who had invited him in, and according to him, it was for racist reasons, as President of the United States, my response was not, who may have influenced this troubled young man to engage in that kind of violence, and now let me go after my political opponents and use that.

George Bush, again, I don’t agree with him on a lot of stuff, but he is a good, gracious man. And one of the, I thought, most commendable things that he did after 9/11, the most horrific thing to happen to the United States during the course of my lifetime, in my memory, in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, made a point, “We are going to go after the people who perpetrated this.” But he explicitly went out of his way to say, “We are not at war against Islam,” and systematically and repeatedly talked about how we can’t use this as a way to divide and target fellow Americans.

And so, when I hear not just our current president, but his aides, who have a history of calling political opponents ‘vermin’, enemies who need to be ‘targeted,’ that speaks to a broader problem that we have right now and something that we’re going to have to grapple with, all of us.

Whether we’re Democrats, Republicans, Independents, we have to recognize that on both sides, undoubtedly, there are people who are extremists and who say things that are contrary to what I believe are America’s core values.

But I will say that those extreme views were not in my White House. I wasn’t embracing them. I wasn’t empowering them. I wasn’t putting the weight of the United States government behind extremist views. And that…when we have the weight of the United States government behind extremist views, we’ve got a problem.

And so, then your original question is, are we at an inflection point? (Laughter.) We’re at an inflection point in the sense that we always have to fight for our democracy, and we have to fight for those values that have made this country the envy of the world. And I often say democracy is not self-executing. It depends on us as citizens, regardless of our political affiliations, to stand up for certain core values, because otherwise we may not have them.

[lurker]

I read that earlier in the evening. He was always a good speaker for his base.

[lurker]

------ but you consistently put feeling over fact it does make having a debate hard.

Interesting comment. You sound like Charlie Kirk debating Trans people.