SectionC3

Yeah he's gotta leave if he said that at that time. No doubt.

OK. So what about people cheering the assault of Paul Pelosi? It is not the same because he did not die? Or because you share the viewpoints of Don Jr., and disagree with those of Paul Pelosi?

They may well be. But they obviously listened to Kirk based on what I've read here. So perhaps it is that you're, shall we say, a bit hypocritical and selective in focusing on the "libs" influencing impressionable and inexperienced college students.

I'd be a lot more confident of that were it not for the whitewashing of J6. I'll add that it's hard to persecute hyperbole by engaging in hyperbole.

Me neither. I don't care what the private sector does on its own volition. I'm troubled by the federal government bullying/pushing the private sector to act a certain way, though. It's reverse wokism, if you will.

Totally agree. I thought it was early to make the point, but Woke is now a "Right" issue.

Agreed. So why cancel all of those people?

So they all supported or joked about a violent felony assault perpetrated against the husband of the former Speaker of the House?

Also, how do you know that college students pay more attention to faculty than they do to, say, online videos and podcasts? Because you know you'd land on the previous question. It's nice to have a boogeyman. But it's hard to ignore that Kirk had reach, that he had schlock, and that he might have done the same thing that you're accusing the "lib" professors to have done.

All I did was ask a question. There's nothing partisan about that. Care to answer it?

Same with Kirk. We're cancelling people about that. But why not Pelosi? Is it because he didn't die? Or is it because his viewpoint doesn't align with yours?

Again, you undermine it. And it's interesting that the guy who searches a message board to find quotes about and from Internet randos chastises someone else for an obsession.

Did they get the same from schlock (prove me wrong, based on the assumption that I'm right) from people like Charlie Kirk?

There we go. That's how it works.

Applying JD's logic with respect to the Kirk murder to the Pelosi assault, the answer obviously is yes. What say you?

Likewise in your biased opinion. We agree to disagree. See how this works?

I'm not arguing about the fatties. It's a problem.

They tried to undo 200+ years of law and order. That's pretty bad, too. Which one is worse? From an historical perspective, easily and obviously J6 insurrectionists.

That's the thread. So much for knocking down inflation.

And so you undermine J6. A sitting president tried to overturn the result of a fair election, you feel like it was a nothing burger, and then contend that this problem of political violence that we have in this country now has nothing to do with the fact that the most significant political violence against the Constitution in the history of the republic was whitewashed. You are part of the problem. And is this a bigger problem than some dumb comments about this horrific murder? Indeed it is.

Some of these comments are bad, for sure. Now you can settle down. And practice the same things. Something bad happens, call it out. Like J6.

Who is cheering it here? And, are you cheering on the thought police?

So what is Kilmeade? He suggested killing people. What does that make him? And what about those who want to round up Democrats, or, without evidence, pin this on them? No one is suggesting that the people cheering murder are not entirely, grossly, and deeply in the wrong. But it does seem like there's a little selective outrage, and some selective thought policing, going on here.

So now you're the speech and thought police?

And you accuse others of not being balanced.