Charlie Kirk Shot
-
You can keep repeating it as much as you want, it makes it no more true.
-
A pretty big drop to the ground. "Lucky" for him he did not break anything. Thought of the JW Booth after he shot President Lincoln.
@taiwan_girl said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
A pretty big drop to the ground. "Lucky" for him he did not break anything. Thought of the JW Booth after he shot President Lincoln.
Ha! I had the same thought, kudos for knowing about the Booth injury after he shot Lincoln!
-
-
Perhaps your President will intervene in some way for the guilty man, the way he did for his supporters who caused five deaths while rioting and looting your Capitol Building?
Seriously, your country which I admire in so very many ways, needs to get its act together, big time, and soon.
@AndyD said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
Seriously, your country which I admire in so very many ways, needs to get its act together, big time, and soon.
I am hopeful even in 2028 (Vance vs Newsom?) that we will at least be on a path towards a semblance of truth, integrity, and respect. Perhaps calmer politics, too. Either way the topic soon will be the looming national debt topic that will require very hard and difficult decisions that'll impact all Americans.
-
Interesting that the story about the casings having trans focused messaging was erroneous - and much like some of the erroneous 9/11 stories from back in the day, it helps to wait a bit to react to verified information. I'm as goofy as the next person in wanting to pick up and run with something that fits my world view, so I understand why it happens and how a mob can feed on such red meat. It's human nature. Hopefully, when the dolphins evolve and take over the world, they'll do better.
-
One thing that I wish could be emphasized is that assassinations - whether done by pro-right or pro-left - shooting a Minnesota politician, a couple of young people working for the Israeli embassy or Charlie Kirk - typically don't do much or anything to further the cause - most often, it does the opposite. In the case of Charlie Kirk, while he said some things which I might characterize as ill-considered, I appreciate that he seemed to be willing to engage in dialogue with people who disagreed with him. That's something i think we need more of - and silencing someone who was willing to do that - is particularly sad. If he disagreed with Kirk, prepare a compelling argument and go to the rally - and argue the points - destroy the message, not the messenger.
-
Yeah true. I've watched clips of Charlie for a few years now, there's often someone saying "why do you need to film everything?" and he often replies its for his safety, because he often hears threats during his events. And yes, agree with him or not, he was engaging in the purest form of free speech and having dialogue with those he disagreed with.
-
I read a book about a woman who was the chief information officer for the Westboro Baptist Church. She was related to the founder and enjoyed the slogans - had definitely bathed in the Kool-Aid of her group. She was in charge of their social media strategies, "winning" the on-line battles - until she encountered a few folks who ignored the slogans and challenged her - engaged her in honest discussion. It took a bit of patience and effort, but over time, she recognized them less as "the enemy" and more as thoughtful people. She left the Church - and family - and to her credit, the book explained a bit of how Westboro became what it is - and how she sees the world now through different eyes.
I could have seen someone wanting to execute Christopher Hitchens because he clearly was leading people away from salvation. Justifying violence comes easy when you're sure of the righteousness of your cause - saving souls, saving lives, fighting hatred, etc.
