JDHillFan Posted September 12 Posted September 12 (edited) 8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: I didn’t agree with Kirk’s views, but that’s neither here nor there. You said earlier you barely knew who he was and that you are mostly unaware of social media. Which is it? Edited September 12 by JDHillFan 1
SCBills Posted September 12 Posted September 12 (edited) 10 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: I was just thinking about that. I didn’t agree with Kirk’s views, but that’s neither here nor there. His death leaves a void that could be filled by someone similar, or by somebody extreme/more extreme, depending on one’s perspective. That might help moderate the country, or it might take it down a really bad path. I assume this is Andrew Tate, who I understand to be a misogynist and bad human. Is that the thumbnail? Andrew Tate, yes… not the greatest influence on young men, to say the least. He says some important things they need to hear, but then goes off the deep end on a lot. Charlie Kirk was basically the nice guy of the manosphere… and now all those nice guys are angry.. and what’s left?.., Andrew Tate types… and a lot of them. And that’s without including Nick Fuentes, which is sadly who a lot of young men are being influenced by. Id say Tate is somewhere in the middle. Toxic but also some of his shtick is helpful. Kirk was the light on the right, to Fuentes and the darkness. Edited September 12 by SCBills
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 12 Posted September 12 1 minute ago, SCBills said: Andrew Tate, yes… not the greatest influence on young men, to say the least. He says some important things they need to hear, but then goes off the deep end on a lot. Charlie Kirk was basically the nice guy of the manosphere… and now all those nice guys are angry.. and what’s left?.., Andrew Tate types… and a lot of them. And that’s without including Nick Fuentes, which is sadly who a lot of young men are being influenced by. Id say Tate is somewhere in the middle. Toxic but also some of his shtick is helpful. Kirk was the light on the right, to Fuentes and the darkness. We don't need more nick Fuentes's, that's for sure. 1
SCBills Posted September 12 Posted September 12 Just now, AlBUNDY4TDS said: We don't need more nick Fuentes's, that's for sure. Hes disgusting. But the left doesn’t, or didn’t, bother to truly learn about Charlie Kirk. They just demonized him. And yes, he said some inflammatory stuff, which much - out of context - was used to curate that demonization… but anyone who knew, knows Kirk was holding the floodgates shut. He was encouraging young men to be better and find meaning in Jesus, marriage, having kids and being a provider etc. And that’s who was murdered. Now we’re left with Andrew Tate type influencers and Nick Fuentes. And Tate is 100x better than Fuentes, to say how abhorrent Nick Fuentes is. 1
SectionC3 Posted September 12 Posted September 12 1 hour ago, JDHillFan said: You said earlier you barely knew who he was and that you are mostly unaware of social media. Which is it? It’s both. From the five minutes I spent looking into the guy, it seems he has some pretty difficult things to say about minorities. And his approach is schlock. Prove me wrong is bogus. How about proving himself right in the first instance without summarily awarding validity to himself. 1 hour ago, SCBills said: Hes disgusting. But the left doesn’t, or didn’t, bother to truly learn about Charlie Kirk. They just demonized him. And yes, he said some inflammatory stuff, which much - out of context - was used to curate that demonization… but anyone who knew, knows Kirk was holding the floodgates shut. He was encouraging young men to be better and find meaning in Jesus, marriage, having kids and being a provider etc. And that’s who was murdered. Now we’re left with Andrew Tate type influencers and Nick Fuentes. And Tate is 100x better than Fuentes, to say how abhorrent Nick Fuentes is. It seems like what is behind the gates is not very good.
JDHillFan Posted September 12 Posted September 12 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: It’s both. From the five minutes I spent looking into the guy, it seems he has some pretty difficult things to say about minorities. And his approach is schlock. Prove me wrong is bogus. How about proving himself right in the first instance without summarily awarding validity to himself. I guess your five minutes of research is sufficient. I’m on board.
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 12 Posted September 12 If there is any honesty on the left they will admit that the demons who are cheering his death are motivated by the fact that Charlie was so much smarter than them and they don't like being made to feel stupid. He wasn't some extremist, he wasn't hateful, he simply was smarter than them and was willing to tell them to their face. 2
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 12 Posted September 12 3 hours ago, BullBuchanan said: Nope, I don't "believe" anything. I KNOW the awful and horrific things he said that stoked hatred and fear int his country in an attempt to divide and alienate massive portions of it. You would do if you just bothered to check his social media accounts and interviews. clearly you and Stephen King have the same sources. 1
Wolfgang Posted September 12 Posted September 12 53 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: It’s both. From the five minutes I spent looking into the guy, it seems he has some pretty difficult things to say about minorities. And his approach is schlock. Prove me wrong is bogus. How about proving himself right in the first instance without summarily awarding validity to himself. It seems like what is behind the gates is not very good. Whatever happens... Is likely warranted... The song remains the same... 10 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: clearly you and Stephen King have the same sources. I found their source...
Scott7975 Posted September 12 Posted September 12 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/after-kirk-assassination-political-left-social-media-posts-list-next-targets/ar-AA1MrpGl https://www.charliesmurderers.com/ Yeah sure, the left isnt violent. Its only a few people. If you think that then you are braindead. 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 12 Posted September 12 What a perfect demonstration of what Liberals are doing to Charlie. He literally shows you who you are, and you still refuse to learn.
BullBuchanan Posted September 12 Posted September 12 (edited) 3 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: clearly you and Stephen King have the same sources. Charlie Kirk's own facebook and twitter account? Doesn't get any closer to the dead horse's mouth than that. Edited September 12 by BullBuchanan
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 12 Posted September 12 4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: Charlie Kirk's own facebook and twitter account? Doesn't get any closer to the dead horse's mouth than that. Islam isn't compatible, they don't assimilate and have different values than us. That isn't some crazy take dude. Saying this doesn't mean you hate Islam. 6 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: Charlie Kirk's own facebook and twitter account? Doesn't get any closer to the dead horse's mouth than that. And that dude is a socialist so? 1
BullBuchanan Posted September 12 Posted September 12 2 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Islam isn't compatible, they don't assimilate and have different values than us. That isn't some crazy take dude. Saying this doesn't mean you hate Islam. And that dude is a socialist so? Do you have any muslim friends? have you ever had a personal or extended professional relationship with someone who is muslim? What does it mean to say that muslims are not compatible with the United States? What is the value added to the conversation by saying that there were people involved in 9/11 that were muslim? What is the value added to the conversation by saying that the person "on pace to run New York City" is a "Muslim Socialist" instead of saying "Zohran Mamdani is on pace to run New York City" 1
JDHillFan Posted September 12 Posted September 12 Just now, BullBuchanan said: What does it mean to say that muslims are not compatible with the United States? That’s not what was said. Why not quote correctly? Would doing so lessen the point you are hoping to make? 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 12 Posted September 12 (edited) 7 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: Do you have any muslim friends? have you ever had a personal or extended professional relationship with someone who is muslim? What does it mean to say that muslims are not compatible with the United States? What is the value added to the conversation by saying that there were people involved in 9/11 that were muslim? What is the value added to the conversation by saying that the person "on pace to run New York City" is a "Muslim Socialist" instead of saying "Zohran Mamdani is on pace to run New York City" I worked with a guy who was a ***** political prisoner from Iran. He was cool as *****. What he is saying is that Muslims tend to force their ideology on places they move to and not fully assimilate. Notice how Dearborn Michigan and Lackawanna are different than the neighborhoods around them? There is nothing wrong with Islam, but the way they treat women certainly can't integrate into the modern feminist views of western culture right? You might not agree with what he said, but it's not a statement rooted in hatred. The dude is a socialist. Do you get mad when someone calls a banana a banana? Edited September 12 by AlBUNDY4TDS
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 12 Posted September 12 8 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: Do you have any muslim friends? have you ever had a personal or extended professional relationship with someone who is muslim? What does it mean to say that muslims are not compatible with the United States? What is the value added to the conversation by saying that there were people involved in 9/11 that were muslim? What is the value added to the conversation by saying that the person "on pace to run New York City" is a "Muslim Socialist" instead of saying "Zohran Mamdani is on pace to run New York City" I also sold halal meat to tons of people at my previous job. So yes I have and I treated each one of them with respect. Have you?
Recommended Posts