Political Posts

[Sweet]

7 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

He probably had it coming - right @LC?

Weird that LC and Buckeye cant bring themselves to condemn it, but do find the time to lecture conservatives, the right, MAGA (as if they listen).  Almost like a sneaking regard for what happened.

[Buckeye]

22 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Yawn, when I grew up trolling was supposed to be funny.

 

You’re not really in a position to be handing out lectures on morality or what makes someone a good person, especially since you don’t seem to know what’s right for wrong, and so far as I can tell, not once said Kirk’s murder was wrong.

Uh oh, now I’m lecturing! Because I am pointing out the absurdity of the Road Coat’s vile garbage videos. 
 

Of course the murder of Charlie Kirk was wrong in every sense of the way! WtF are you insinuating Sweet? You spend your time watching those videos of people being shirty and you automatically assume everyone is shitty, huh? That shit’s rotting your brain. 

[LC]

11 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

He probably had it coming - right @LC?

 

I mean he was kind of asking for it with that short skirt and low cut bra he was wearing, right? 

 

 

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, Sweet said:

Weird that LC and Buckeye cant bring themselves to condemn it, but do find the time to lecture conservatives, the right, MAGA (as if they listen).  Almost like a sneaking regard for what happened.

Uh oh sweet, lols like your bs argument is just as dumb as your triggering videos. 

[LC]

2 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Weird that LC and Buckeye cant bring themselves to condemn it, but do find the time to lecture conservatives, the right, MAGA (as if they listen).  Almost like a sneaking regard for what happened.

 

It's a state's rights issue!

[Sweet]

42 minutes ago, LC said:

 

"He didn't say to stone gay people, he just said that God's law to stone gay people is totally righteous!" 

 

Yes this is just a totally reasonable person who was simply misinterpreted by the damn liberal media!

 

Oooookay

 

If you want to run around in circles to defend this guy that is your prerogative.

I’m not even defending him there, I’m correcting a misrepresentation you made.  If you had a shred of intellectual honesty you’d accept he didn’t say what you claimed (crickets).

 

Specifically he’s taking issue with something another Christian is saying from in a book of the Old Testament, and he’s pointing out her contradiction.  Kirk is a Christian, and anybody even slightly informed about Christianity knows that most Christians regard the New Testament as the rules to live by - not the Old.

 

Edited September 11, 2025 by Sweet

[Sweet]

4 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Uh oh sweet, lols like your bs argument is just as dumb as your triggering videos. 

You’re triggered Buckeye?  Maybe mute me.  I don’t want my hurty words to trigger you into an assassination attempt.

 

4 minutes ago, LC said:

 

It's a state's rights issue!

Sneaking regarder confirmed.  The liberal, tolerant, ‘be kind’ left, everyone.

 

Edited September 11, 2025 by Sweet

[Buckeye]

3 minutes ago, Sweet said:

You’re triggered Buckeye?  Maybe mute me.  I don’t want my hurty words to trigger you into an assassination attempt.

 

Sneaking regarder confirmed.  The liberal, tolerant, ‘be kind’ left, everyone.

 

Damn Sweet, so because I pointed out that your videos are dumb, now you’ve accused me of condoning the death of Charlie Kirk and also of possibly killing someone?  And I’m the one who is triggered? I feel sorry for your kids. 

[Eldad]

8 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Uh oh, now I’m lecturing! Because I am pointing out the absurdity of the Road Coat’s vile garbage videos. 
 

Of course the murder of Charlie Kirk was wrong in every sense of the way! WtF are you insinuating Sweet? You spend your time watching those videos of people being shirty and you automatically assume everyone is shitty, huh? That shit’s rotting your brain. 

Yes. 99% of Democrat voters think it’s terrible I’m sure. We are not on teams at war. 
 

Who is one of the more annoying liberals to conservatives? Beto? Let’s say Beto let a crazy bum sleep in a tent in his front yard and then was killed by said bum. I guarantee there would be some portion of the right laughing at the irony. 
 

The people that live on Twitter and act as propaganda vehicles for the parties are NOT the American people and should be ignored. 

[Sweet]

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Damn Sweet, so because I pointed out that your videos are dumb, now you’ve accused me of condoning the death of Charlie Kirk and also of possibly killing someone?  And I’m the one who is triggered? I feel sorry for your kids. 

Have you said that you think Kirk’s murder is wrong Buckeye?

 

Are you triggered by trolling now too?  If you can’t take it don’t give it - that would be my advice.

 

My kids love me btw, and I love them - I’m blessed.  But sure, talk about my kids more, it definitely makes one of us look bad lol.

 

Edited September 11, 2025 by Sweet

[Sweet]

21 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Of course the murder of Charlie Kirk was wrong in every sense of the way! WtF are you insinuating Sweet?

Just saw this.  We do actually have something in common after all.

[Onefoothurdles]

My thoughts on Kirk:

 

Yes, there are many who didn’t agree with him — that’s part of what makes a nation. But he certainly didn’t deserve to die for his views. While there’s been a lot of shock and sadness at the news, what’s also sad is to see the level of celebration happening on social media. So many seem relieved, even calling it “street justice,” as if a man’s life can be settled like that.

 

It raises two questions for me. First: what made his views so “dangerous” that someone felt he needed to be killed? He wasn’t unique in holding strong or controversial opinions, but his platform was large, his words cut sharply, and he carried influence that opponents saw as a real threat to their vision of society. In that sense, it wasn’t the truth or falsity of his words that put him at risk, but the reach and impact they had.
 

Second: how many documented cases do we actually have of people being assassinated simply for “spinning lies”? If you look through history, the record is clear: truth-tellers, reformers, and dissidents are the ones who get silenced — from prophets to journalists to civil rights leaders. Liars usually get ignored, mocked, or discredited. Assassination almost never comes because someone was “spreading lies”; it comes because their voice was seen as too powerful, too disruptive, too dangerous to those who opposed them.

[Eldad]

10 minutes ago, Onefoothurdles said:

My thoughts on Kirk:

 

Yes, there are many who didn’t agree with him — that’s part of what makes a nation. But he certainly didn’t deserve to die for his views. While there’s been a lot of shock and sadness at the news, what’s also sad is to see the level of celebration happening on social media. So many seem relieved, even calling it “street justice,” as if a man’s life can be settled like that.

 

It raises two questions for me. First: what made his views so “dangerous” that someone felt he needed to be killed? He wasn’t unique in holding strong or controversial opinions, but his platform was large, his words cut sharply, and he carried influence that opponents saw as a real threat to their vision of society. In that sense, it wasn’t the truth or falsity of his words that put him at risk, but the reach and impact they had.
 

Second: how many documented cases do we actually have of people being assassinated simply for “spinning lies”? If you look through history, the record is clear: truth-tellers, reformers, and dissidents are the ones who get silenced — from prophets to journalists to civil rights leaders. Liars usually get ignored, mocked, or discredited. Assassination almost never comes because someone was “spreading lies”; it comes because their voice was seen as too powerful, too disruptive, too dangerous to those who opposed them.

Great points. He was very smart. If you watch the videos of him discussing issues with liberals on college campuses, he would usually utterly destroy them using logic. This can be dangerous.
 

Anyone that has had an argument with a friend or spouse over an emotional issue knows that you don’t win the argument just because you beat them logically. The gotcha stuff is not the way to reconcile people or win hearts and minds. 

[SharperDingaan]

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

Yep, these supposedly well educated, liberal, morale authorities on everything, mask dropping.  Here’s another, a guy who debated Kirk at the Oxford University just a few months ago, and set to be the debating union president, gloating:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/11/oxford-union-president-george-abaraonye-charlie-kirk-murder/

 

Just evil people.

 

The Oxford Student Union intentionally has these controversial debates so that students can see proponents challenged, hear/see what they say and do, and make their own minds up. Students from multiple disciplines, researching current approaches, who may well have to engage with their generation of these controversial proponents when they graduate. Many an extreme proponent is very good at making their views seem 'normal', because they can both present extremely charismatically, and are very good at crowd manipulation; so much so that you have to see it, to believe it.

• Very few thought that Trump might make president during the early days of his first run at the presidency, 'cause how could anyone possibly go along with this idiot! But had you attended even just the odd rally of his, the presentation charisma and crowd manipulation would have been obvious, and it won him the presidency. Oxfords invitation to speak at a Student Union event, little different to attending that rally.

Politics is a blood sport and the winner takes all, so hardly surprising if charismatic proponents are targeted for 'special interest'. As in the drug trade, there are rivals, and in most countries; in the rise to the top, problematic potential rivals are prone to 'accidents/assassinations'. When the other guy has a savant making your life difficult .... the savant is made an offer they cannot refuse. State craft.

 

3rd world stuff ... and maybe just where the US political processes actually are today?

Different PoV.

 

SD

 

       

Edited September 11, 2025 by SharperDingaan

[LC]

9 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

3rd world stuff ... and maybe just where the US political processes actually are today?

 

Today? This was a decade ago. Any sense of political decorum is out the window as long as this guy is in power:

 

 

[Sweet]

15 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

 

The Oxford Student Union intentionally has these controversial debates so that students can see proponents challenged, hear/see what they say and do, and make their own minds up. Students from multiple disciplines, researching current approaches, who may well have to engage with their generation of these controversial proponents when they graduate. Many an extreme proponent is very good at making their views seem 'normal', because they can both present extremely charismatically, and are very good at crowd manipulation; so much so that you have to see it, to believe it.

• Very few thought that Trump might make president during the early days of his first run at the presidency, 'cause how could you anyone possibly go along with this idiot! But if you had attended even just the odd rally of his, the presentation charisma and crowd manipulation would have been obvious, and it won him the presidency. Oxfords invitation to speak at a Student Union event, little different to attending that rally.

Politics is a blood sport and the winner takes all, so hardly surprising if charismatic proponents are targeted for 'special interest'. As in the drug trade, there are rivals, and in most countries; in the rise to the top, problematic potential rivals are prone to 'accidents/assassinations'. When the other guy has a savant making your life difficult .... you make the savant an offer they cannot refuse. State craft.

 

3rd world stuff ... and maybe just where the US political processes actually are today?

Different PoV.

 

SD

 

       

Yes the debating Union does have quite charged stuff.  The reason for my posting that is that the unofficial moto of the Union is to uphold free speech and promote dialogue.  Yet the incoming president is gloating that someone he debated against was murdered which runs contrary to the history and values of the place (so far as I can tell).  

 

For those on the left, many don’t seem to realise that the ground they're standing on is moving.  The left today isn’t remotely like the left 20 years ago.  The right has changed considerably too, but I can see it, and I’ve a good feel for the crazies because I spent far too long ‘debating’ (not the right word) many of those whackos online.

 

Edited September 11, 2025 by Sweet

[Sweet]

12 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Today? This was a decade ago. Any sense of political decorum is out the window as long as this guy is in power:

 

 

That’s the way Trump mocks many people, just that the MSM cherry picked a time when the person he was mocking had a disability.  Here are other examples of Trump doing the exact same mocking gestures for people not disabled:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1329717/Video-aims-disprove-claim-Trump-fun-disabled-reporter.html

 

Edit - for clarity, I much preferred when conservatives were polite, and I dislike Trump’s vulgar approach.  But you do appear to swallow the narrative very easily.

 

Edited September 11, 2025 by Sweet

[cubsfan]

51 minutes ago, Onefoothurdles said:

My thoughts on Kirk:

 

Yes, there are many who didn’t agree with him — that’s part of what makes a nation. But he certainly didn’t deserve to die for his views. While there’s been a lot of shock and sadness at the news, what’s also sad is to see the level of celebration happening on social media. So many seem relieved, even calling it “street justice,” as if a man’s life can be settled like that.

 

It raises two questions for me. First: what made his views so “dangerous” that someone felt he needed to be killed? He wasn’t unique in holding strong or controversial opinions, but his platform was large, his words cut sharply, and he carried influence that opponents saw as a real threat to their vision of society. In that sense, it wasn’t the truth or falsity of his words that put him at risk, but the reach and impact they had.
 

Second: how many documented cases do we actually have of people being assassinated simply for “spinning lies”? If you look through history, the record is clear: truth-tellers, reformers, and dissidents are the ones who get silenced — from prophets to journalists to civil rights leaders. Liars usually get ignored, mocked, or discredited. Assassination almost never comes because someone was “spreading lies”; it comes because their voice was seen as too powerful, too disruptive, too dangerous to those who opposed them.

 

+1 - awesome

[LC]

Here I was thinking Trump made a single mistake mocking a disabled person. 

 

Thanks for correcting me that Trump regularly mocks disabled people.

[cubsfan]

37 minutes ago, Eldad said:

Great points. He was very smart. If you watch the videos of him discussing issues with liberals on college campuses, he would usually utterly destroy them using logic. This can be dangerous.
 

Anyone that has had an argument with a friend or spouse over an emotional issue knows that you don’t win the argument just because you beat them logically. The gotcha stuff is not the way to reconcile people or win hearts and minds. 

 

Well, that is quite a good point. 

 

I'd say the counter point is this: if you really want to LEARN, especially on difficult topics, you have to use the truth as much as possible - and be specific. That is how you win an argument.  And in that process, you just might offend someone.

That is inevitable- so in the pursuit of the truth, you often have to risk being offensive.  Just look at this nonsense regarding transgenders - can a man actually become a woman?  Of course not!!  - but in the process of being logical, people become offended. 

 

Finding the truth often comes with people being offended. But that is how one learns.

[cubsfan]

23 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Today? This was a decade ago. Any sense of political decorum is out the window as long as this guy is in power:

 

 

 

No - it disappeared completely after the country elected Barrack Obama.

He was largely elected by the white vote because of his "hope & change" message.  But then he turned on the same crowd with his shouts of racism and white supremacy.  Barrack Obama was the most racially divisive Presidential figure in years.

[Sweet]

5 minutes ago, LC said:

Here I was thinking Trump made a single mistake mocking a disabled person. 

 

Thanks for correcting me that Trump regularly mocks disabled people.

Trump has said and done lots of wild shit, but you managed to pick one which perfectly portrays the propaganda the media regularly pushed during his first term election campaign.

 

Likewise you said that Kirk ‘believed that gay people should be stoned to death’ and then posted a video which didn’t even show that.

 

[Eldad]

1 hour ago, LC said:

 

I mean he was kind of asking for it with that short skirt and low cut bra he was wearing, right? 

 

 

Just saw where a CBS talking head asked Kevin McCarthy paraphrasing

 

“After the Kirk incident and the assassination attempts on Pres Trump, does your party need to do some soul searching regarding its use of hateful rhetoric?”

 

Now that is some victim shaming! 
 

Ok I gotta get away from the politics now. 

[LC]

4 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Trump has said and done lots of wild shit, but you managed to pick one which perfectly portrays the propaganda the media regularly pushed during his first term election campaign.

 

Likewise you said that Kirk ‘believed that gay people should be stoned to death’ and then posted a video which didn’t even show that.

 

 

Maybe Trump will pardon Kirk's shooter the same way he pardoned the PATRIOTS that stormed the White House on Jan 6, leading to the deaths of multiple people. 

 

 

God's perfect law: Stoning gay people to death -Charlie Kirk

You can interpret that however you want, Sweet.

[LC]

24 minutes ago, Eldad said:

Just saw where a CBS talking head asked Kevin McCarthy paraphrasing

 

“After the Kirk incident and the assassination attempts on Pres Trump, does your party need to do some soul searching regarding its use of hateful rhetoric?”

 

Now that is some victim shaming! 
 

Ok I gotta get away from the politics now. 

 

Oh its absurd on both sides, I am with you there. 

 

Same with the "before I grace you with my discource, you must publicly condemn* the deaths that I don't like, but ignore the other deaths that I don't care about!".

 

It's politics - hypocrisy all around of course. And it just gets worse when the stakes are raised and there's blood on the pulpit, unfortunately.

Edited September 11, 2025 by LC