Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Politesse]

Accusing minorities of being diversity hires, denouncing welfare as theft, insisting that liberalism should only apply to inconsequential shit, pretending there's a vast anti-conservative conspiracy. I read your post. What part of it do you think Ben Shapiro would object to?

Please stop making shit up. I've done nothing of the sort.

Well, what do you think distinguishes your ideology from that of the alt-right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or New things might work out better, but they can also be catastrophic.

Name a progressive idea that has resulted in "catastrophe". "Wokeness" doesn't count, because that's vague as shit.

The name your price gun?

 

[Bomb#20]

Converse away -- and TSwizzle equally well gets to converse about how obviously similar the "protesting" thugs who beat up Kirk fans are to Mussolini's Blackshirts. "Obviously similar" is in the eye of the beholder.

No one has attempted to stop him from doing so. Welcome to adulthood in a democratic society, not everyone agrees on stuff.

I have refreshed my memory by reading a report of the event, and there is no mention of protesting thugs beating up "Kirk fans". The police were there for the entire event, and there were some clashes between both sides (not one side beating up the other), and the only arrests were for vandalism. So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again, and Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe him.

As I said upthread, my source was ABC. There's a link in post #1870.

 

[Jarhyn]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or not you call yourself one.

IKR? This is by very definition a "political conservative", or even a "political regressive" seeing that many progressive things have happened in society and she wants to undo them despite the measurable success they have created.

She winged about marijuana being legalized.

She winged about people relaxing on gender roles (and in the most bad-faith way).

She whinges about raising taxes.

She whinges about the homeless.

What I can certainly say is that such folks did accomplish something that atheists tend to be fair worse at than even today's false Christians: they manage to be completely and utterly unchristian in everything they do.

The problem is that they threw away the baby with that bathwater.

 

[Politesse]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or not you call yourself one.

IKR? This is by very definition a "political conservative", or even a "political regressive" seeing that many progressive things have happened in society and she wants to undo them despite the measurable success they have created.

She winged about marijuana being legalized.

She winged about people relaxing on gender roles (and in the most bad-faith way).

She whinges about raising taxes.

She whinges about the homeless.

What I can certainly say is that such folks did accomplish something that atheists tend to be fair worse at than even today's false Christians: they manage to be completely and utterly unchristian in everything they do.

The problem is that they threw away the baby with that bathwater.

Emily does seem to want one thing, exactly one thing, from western liberalism: women's rights, specifically and exclusively for cis women. This, she'll talk your ear off about, and I think it's one reason she doesn't want to endorse Trump directly. But wanting gifts for your voting demographic only and not giving a shit about anyone else's concerns is actually pretty common on the political right.

 

[Jarhyn]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or not you call yourself one.

IKR? This is by very definition a "political conservative", or even a "political regressive" seeing that many progressive things have happened in society and she wants to undo them despite the measurable success they have created.

She winged about marijuana being legalized.

She winged about people relaxing on gender roles (and in the most bad-faith way).

She whinges about raising taxes.

She whinges about the homeless.

What I can certainly say is that such folks did accomplish something that atheists tend to be fair worse at than even today's false Christians: they manage to be completely and utterly unchristian in everything they do.

The problem is that they threw away the baby with that bathwater.

Emily does seem to want one thing, exactly one thing, from western liberalism: women's rights, specifically and exclusively for cis women. This, she'll talk your ear off about, and I think it's one reason she doesn't want to endorse Trump directly. But wanting gifts for your voting demographic only and not giving a shit about anyone else's concerns is actually pretty common on the political right.

So, exclusionary fascism brought into the space of women's rights, along with the fascism against the homeless and trans people and the end of public works.

I mean, I'm pretty sure a large number of Nazi women were specifically that way with the intent to reject 'jewish' gender science. They just changed the word 'jewish' to 'liberal' or 'progressive' which, to be fair, Jewish people of the 1930's tended to be (because they weren't as poisoned by the Catholic church's focus on dogma over curiosity).

All the same patterns as are emerging now emerged then, this is how they emerged, and the last time they emerged like this the people who behaved and spoke and believed as Emily does were the people who sided strongly with the Nazis, and then pretended they didn't after the war and everyone just conveniently forgot because it was expedient, and now here we are again.

 

[Emily Lake]

Accusing minorities of being diversity hires, denouncing welfare as theft, insisting that liberalism should only apply to inconsequential shit, pretending there's a vast anti-conservative conspiracy. I read your post. What part of it do you think Ben Shapiro would object to?

Please stop making shit up. I've done nothing of the sort.

Well, what do you think distinguishes your ideology from that of the alt-right?

I'm not playing your stupid game. You're the one who made an unsupported accusation, and then repeatedly refuse to support it. Pretty much, you seem to want to be allowed to name call without challenge.

You've invented things I've never said and attributed those views to me falsely. Then you take the things that you made up, and you attacked me and called me names based on the things in your own head.

 

[Emily Lake]

IKR? This is by very definition a "political conservative", or even a "political regressive" seeing that many progressive things have happened in society and she wants to undo them despite the measurable success they have created.

She winged about marijuana being legalized.

She winged about people relaxing on gender roles (and in the most bad-faith way).

She whinges about raising taxes.

She whinges about the homeless.

What I can certainly say is that such folks did accomplish something that atheists tend to be fair worse at than even today's false Christians: they manage to be completely and utterly unchristian in everything they do.

The problem is that they threw away the baby with that bathwater.

Please stop making shit up and intentionally mischaracterizing my views based on your twisted imagination. None of what you've attributed to me is true.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily does seem to want one thing, exactly one thing, from western liberalism: women's rights, specifically and exclusively for cis women. This, she'll talk your ear off about, and I think it's one reason she doesn't want to endorse Trump directly. But wanting gifts for your voting demographic only and not giving a shit about anyone else's concerns is actually pretty common on the political right.

Why do you feel somehow righteous when you make shit up and run with it? Do you genuinely believe that intentional misinformation gives you the moral high ground here?

 

[Emily Lake]

So, exclusionary fascism brought into the space of women's rights, along with the fascism against the homeless and trans people and the end of public works.

I mean, I'm pretty sure a large number of Nazi women were specifically that way with the intent to reject 'jewish' gender science. They just changed the word 'jewish' to 'liberal' or 'progressive' which, to be fair, Jewish people of the 1930's tended to be (because they weren't as poisoned by the Catholic church's focus on dogma over curiosity).

All the same patterns as are emerging now emerged then, this is how they emerged, and the last time they emerged like this the people who behaved and spoke and believed as Emily does were the people who sided strongly with the Nazis, and then pretended they didn't after the war and everyone just conveniently forgot because it was expedient, and now here we are again.

I swear you two are busy feeding each other your own manufactured persecution fantasies, and amping each other up about how great your fictions are and how your fictions make you morally superior.

FFS, sort yourselves out!

 

[southernhybrid]

I wish somebody would throw this fucking, off topic, POS thread into the sewer, metaphorically speaking, where I belongs.

Don't we have a place to get rid of insulting irrelevant threads like this?

 

[pood]

The Kirk murder has turned out to be a big fat nothing burger.

A year from now he will be barely remembered, including by his biggest ignorant fan boys who will chasing after some new shiny bauble dangled before then by Trump, assuming Trump himself is not dead from his obvious physical and mental decline.

 

[Elixir]

There’s still a Charlie Kirk channel on Dish.
I thought he was dead.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Converse away -- and TSwizzle equally well gets to converse about how obviously similar the "protesting" thugs who beat up Kirk fans are to Mussolini's Blackshirts. "Obviously similar" is in the eye of the beholder.

No one has attempted to stop him from doing so. Welcome to adulthood in a democratic society, not everyone agrees on stuff.

I have refreshed my memory by reading a report of the event, and there is no mention of protesting thugs beating up "Kirk fans". The police were there for the entire event, and there were some clashes between both sides (not one side beating up the other), and the only arrests were for vandalism. So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again, and Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe him.

As I said upthread, my source was ABC. There's a link in post #1870.

Post#1870, page 94. This shows that there were attendees inside, police outside and protesters also outside, with the police between the TPUSA and protesters. Then smoke bombs (police issue) and police attacks on protesters and arrests, no harm done to the people inside hall. So, no interaction between protesters and the TPUSA people by your and TSwizzle's own evidence. So the both sides were the police and the protesters, with the police being the thugs, as some protesters were bleeding.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again,

See post #2074 above where I point out that the video you yourself posted contradicts what you claimed - the claim being that protesters were assaulting TPUSA people.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have refreshed my memory by reading a report of the event, and there is no mention of protesting thugs beating up "Kirk fans". The police were there for the entire event, and there were some clashes between both sides (not one side beating up the other), and the only arrests were for vandalism. So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again, and Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe him.

As I said upthread, my source was ABC. There's a link in post #1870.

Post#1870, page 94. This shows that there were attendees inside, police outside and protesters also outside, with the police between the TPUSA and protesters. Then smoke bombs (police issue) and police attacks on protesters and arrests, no harm done to the people inside hall. So, no interaction between protesters and the TPUSA people by your and TSwizzle's own evidence. So the both sides were the police and the protesters, with the police being the thugs, as some protesters were bleeding.

How do you figure "there were attendees inside" and "no harm done to the people inside hall" imply "no interaction between protesters and the TPUSA people"?!? There were more TPUSA people there besides the ones inside. The Kirk fans who got beat up were outside. According to the ABC story,

"Fortune said while purchasing a T-shirt for her husband from a street vendor, she witnessed him get beat up by a protestor. ABC7 News cameras captured the vendor, with a bloody face, getting escorted away by police while another man was arrested."
...
"A man seen in a viral video beating a Turning Point USA supporter near the University of California, Berkeley campus on Monday evening has been arrested and charged with violent crimes, according to local police."​

If you think those don't qualify, help me out here -- what am I missing?