Charlie Kirk has been shot

[tlynn78]

Rhetoric that glorifies and encourages the commission of violent acts, such asking for a "patriot" to bail out David DePape. --Bob

IOW-I guess it is a good thing that he was assassinated then.

Not what I said, and not what I think.

Do you believe that someone who called for the release of the guy who took a hammer to Paul Pelosi's skull deserves to be glorified? Because the glorification is what I'm objecting to.

It's possible to deplore the killing without making the guy some kind of a hero. That's where I'm at. And it's also possible to call out Republican politicians for hypocrisy when they use this killing to score political points, when they were largely silent after Melissa Hortman and her husband were shot and killed. (Or did I miss the flags being lowered to half-staff when that happened?) That's also where I'm at. --Bob

cough - cough <George Floyd> cough cough...

I guess I missed all the hoopla the Dems trotted out to honor the Hortmans...

[flockofseagulls104]

Not what I said, and not what I think.

You can't use that deflection if you don't give others such grace.

No deflection. He tried to put words in my mouth (or on my keyboard) that I neither wrote nor agree with. I corrected him.

Do you agree with glorifying a guy who said that some "patriot" should bail out David DePape? --Bob

Do you even read posts that disagree with you, do you just ignore them or is it that you have no comprehension skills? Move on. That point has been shown to be invalid.

[silverscreenselect]

I guess I missed all the hoopla the Dems trotted out to honor the Hortmans...

Grief, anger prevail in reactions to killing of House DFL leader Hortman

Democrats did react to Melissa Hortman's death, and, to their credit, several Republicans did as well, especially in Minnesota.

What Democrats did not do was to turn the deaths into a spectacle to try to score political points.

[Bob78164]

I guess I missed all the hoopla the Dems trotted out to honor the Hortmans...

I'll keep asking this question until someone answers it.

Do you agree with glorifying a guy who said that some "patriot" should bail out David DePape? --Bob

[tlynn78]

I guess I missed all the hoopla the Dems trotted out to honor the Hortmans...

Grief, anger prevail in reactions to killing of House DFL leader Hortman

Democrats did react to Melissa Hortman's death, and, to their credit, several Republicans did as well, especially in Minnesota.

What Democrats did not do was to turn the deaths into a spectacle to try to score political points.

Right. Not one lefty immediately blamed a Republican. And y'all like to reserve your real outrage for criminals.

[tlynn78]

I guess I missed all the hoopla the Dems trotted out to honor the Hortmans...

I'll keep asking this question until someone answers it.

Do you agree with glorifying a guy who said that some "patriot" should bail out David DePape? --Bob

I'd estimate about 99.8 percent of the earth's population has said at least one thing i disagree with; I do, however, have enough discernment to understand context - something your ilk seem to be allergic to. That said, very few people are "glorifying" CK. Most of those honoring him worship their Lord, not mortals.

[Bob78164]

I guess I missed all the hoopla the Dems trotted out to honor the Hortmans...

I'll keep asking this question until someone answers it.

Do you agree with glorifying a guy who said that some "patriot" should bail out David DePape? --Bob

I'd estimate about 99.8 percent of the earth's population has said at least one thing i disagree with; I do, however, have enough discernment to understand context - something your ilk seem to be allergic to. That said, very few people are "glorifying" CK. Most of those honoring him worship their Lord, not mortals.

(*Snort*) Lowering flags across the nation to half-staff? Having the Vice President accompany his body? Having the present occupant of the Oval Office speak at his funeral? Planning to posthumously award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

I'm still waiting for a direct answer. Do you think it's okay to afford all of those honors to the guy who invited a "patriot" to bail David DePape out of prison after he took a hammer to Paul Pelosi's skull? --Bob

[BackInTex]

Not what I said, and not what I think.

You can't use that deflection if you don't give others such grace.

No deflection. He tried to put words in my mouth (or on my keyboard) that I neither wrote nor agree with. I corrected him.

Do you agree with glorifying a guy who said that some "patriot" should bail out David DePape? --Bob

Yes it is a deflection. Charlie did not say AND MEAN what you say he said, and by your continous nagging, meant.

[tlynn78]

Oh, and if one of you could direct me to the thousands and thousands of completely reprehensible posts by conservatives mocking and cheering the deaths of the MN couple? No?

[tlynn78]

I'll keep asking this question until someone answers it.

Do you agree with glorifying a guy who said that some "patriot" should bail out David DePape? --Bob

I'd estimate about 99.8 percent of the earth's population has said at least one thing i disagree with; I do, however, have enough discernment to understand context - something your ilk seem to be allergic to. That said, very few people are "glorifying" CK. Most of those honoring him worship their Lord, not mortals.

(*Snort*) Lowering flags across the nation to half-staff? Having the Vice President accompany his body? Having the present occupant of the Oval Office speak at his funeral? Planning to posthumously award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

I'm still waiting for a direct answer. Do you think it's okay to afford all of those honors to the guy who invited a "patriot" to bail David DePape out of prison after he took a hammer to Paul Pelosi's skull? --Bob

The Medal of Freedom might be a bit much; the rest, I'm not the one making those choices, but I have no problem with it.

[Bob78164]

You can't use that deflection if you don't give others such grace.

No deflection. He tried to put words in my mouth (or on my keyboard) that I neither wrote nor agree with. I corrected him.

Do you agree with glorifying a guy who said that some "patriot" should bail out David DePape? --Bob

Yes it is a deflection. Charlie did not say AND MEAN what you say he said, and by your continous nagging, meant.

My link includes a link to the audio of him saying exactly that. --Bob

[BackInTex]

No deflection. He tried to put words in my mouth (or on my keyboard) that I neither wrote nor agree with. I corrected him.

Do you agree with glorifying a guy who said that some "patriot" should bail out David DePape? --Bob

Yes it is a deflection. Charlie did not say AND MEAN what you say he said, and by your continous nagging, meant.

My link includes a link to the audio of him saying exactly that. --Bob

Yes, in jest, more of as a protest about all the murders in leftist cities getting low or no cash bails, he says it. Just like Trump asked Putin to hack Clinton's emails, or whatever it was you insisted Trump was serious about. Neithere meant it and any reasonable, intellectually honest person, knows that.

[flockofseagulls104]

No deflection. He tried to put words in my mouth (or on my keyboard) that I neither wrote nor agree with. I corrected him.

Do you agree with glorifying a guy who said that some "patriot" should bail out David DePape? --Bob

Yes it is a deflection. Charlie did not say AND MEAN what you say he said, and by your continous nagging, meant.

My link includes a link to the audio of him saying exactly that. --Bob

My Lord, Bob. Are you really that shallow? I mean seriously. Or are you just stupid and assume everyone you disagree with is even stupider than you are?

[Bob78164]

Yes it is a deflection. Charlie did not say AND MEAN what you say he said, and by your continous nagging, meant.

My link includes a link to the audio of him saying exactly that. --Bob

Yes, in jest, more of as a protest about all the murders in leftist cities getting low or no cash bails, he says it. Just like Trump asked Putin to hack Clinton's emails, or whatever it was you insisted Trump was serious about. Neithere meant it and any reasonable, intellectually honest person, knows that.

Bullshit. That was immediately after he denied that right-wing conspiracy theories were DePape's motivation. He was calling for a "patriot" to bail out DePape to ask him some questions about what actually motivated him.

He didn't deserve to die and he certainly didn't deserve to die the way he died. But he also doesn't deserve praise for the way he lived his life. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

My link includes a link to the audio of him saying exactly that. --Bob

Yes, in jest, more of as a protest about all the murders in leftist cities getting low or no cash bails, he says it. Just like Trump asked Putin to hack Clinton's emails, or whatever it was you insisted Trump was serious about. Neithere meant it and any reasonable, intellectually honest person, knows that.

Bullshit. That was immediately after he denied that right-wing conspiracy theories were DePape's motivation. He was calling for a "patriot" to bail out DePape to ask him some questions about what actually motivated him.

He didn't deserve to die and he certainly didn't deserve to die the way he died. But he also doesn't deserve praise for the way he lived his life. --Bob

Right, Bob.

No doubt in your mind, I'm sure. No room in there for anything else with all the BS you've packed in there.
Might work with a jury of thoroughly gullible and ignorant people you've hand picked. But too many people, including me, know who Charlie Kirk was and what he stood for. Do you really think he wanted that violent criminal out of custody? Seriously? Are you really that shallow and expect everyone else to be? He was making a POINT, bob! Don't they teach that in lawyer school? You have no clue, and you are determined never to know. So take one frickin sentence identified by an outfit like Media Matters (soon to be gone, God willing) and leave out the logical context and base your hatred on that. Just like AOC. Any comment on that example, bob? Or will you just ignore it 'cause you have no answer for it?

Knock yurself out. You prove yourself unworthy of any credibility with every post.

[flockofseagulls104]

This is mainly what Charlie did. I imagine any one of you lefties would have answered Charlie's question the same way.

[silverscreenselect]

This is mainly what Charlie did. I imagine any one of you lefties would have answered Charlie's question the same way.

What Charlie Kirk did was pick out an unskilled debater and use her as an "example." That's a common tactic on right-wing talk radio, where they allowed token leftists on the air who were not particularly skilled speakers and allowed them to stumble.

As far as Trump's comments, the ones about bad genes, vermin, and eating cats and dogs immediately come to mind. As for Charlie Kirk:

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.

Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.

The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.

[flockofseagulls104]

This is mainly what Charlie did. I imagine any one of you lefties would have answered Charlie's question the same way.

What Charlie Kirk did was pick out an unskilled debater and use her as an "example." That's a common tactic on right-wing talk radio, where they allowed token leftists on the air who were not particularly skilled speakers and allowed them to stumble.

As far as Trump's comments, the ones about bad genes, vermin, and eating cats and dogs immediately come to mind. As for Charlie Kirk:

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.

Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.

The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.

First of all, please define what you mean by racism, SSS.

I found your 'SOURCE'. Media Matters.
Do you know what Media Matters is? They pay a bunch of people to listen to broadcasts and podcasts they target to try and find snippets of content they can use and take out of context to smear the people they want to destroy. They've been doing it for years and years, but they are on the verge of going under because we're fighting back. This quotes you use are beauties of out of context snippets especially made for you.

1. I remember Charlie saying something like that as a response to United (I think) Airlines REQUIRING a certain percentage of the pilots they hire have dark skin. I think that United Airlines is being racist there, not Charlie. I think it is a valid point.

2. Another Media Matters piece of crapola. Nothing Charlie says is false. Here is the full segment in context. Prove he says something false, SSS. You may not agree with him, but that doesn't mean he's a racist, does it SSS?

And his analysis was shown to be correct.

3. Again, another instance of Media Matters finding a snippet that will enrage you. Watch the whole segment, SSS. He makes a point and a valid one. The MSNBC clip he shows is far more disgusting than anything Charlie says about the replacement theory. The Great Replacement theory is about replacing conservative voters with illegals to sway the Electoral College and eventually the populace towards the left. Not races. If you don't believe the Great Replacement Theory is valid, please provide another plausible reason why the Biden Admin encouraged unlimited illegal entries and claimed it was impossible to stop when Trump was able to shut it completely down within months.

Disagreeing with your narrative is not racist.

[jarnon]

What Charlie Kirk did was pick out an unskilled debater and use her as an "example." That's a common tactic on right-wing talk radio, where they allowed token leftists on the air who were not particularly skilled speakers and allowed them to stumble.

Also at the presidential debate in June 2024.

[flockofseagulls104]

Duplicate

[flockofseagulls104]

What Charlie Kirk did was pick out an unskilled debater and use her as an "example." That's a common tactic on right-wing talk radio, where they allowed token leftists on the air who were not particularly skilled speakers and allowed them to stumble.

Also at the presidential debate in June 2024.

He did not 'pick them out'. They came and volunteered themselves.

[silverscreenselect]

I found your 'SOURCE'. Media Matters.

Media Matters was not my source. I'd never heard of Media Matters until you mentioned them. These comments have been widely reported. I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion of racism, but if Charlie Kirk actually believed that a major airline would entrust hundreds of lives and a multimillion-dollar plane to someone who wasn't highly qualified to fly that plane, that's textbook racism. And if he didn't believe it but was just saying so to score points with an approving audience, that's a different form of racism.

As far as the woman in the clip "volunteering," people of all political backgrounds volunteer to make idiots of themselves on camera all the time. Late-night comics have been doing these types of segments for decades. Add the nervous effect of knowing you have a camera and an audience on you (something I'm personally well aware of) adds to the pressure on the volunteer. If you went to a MAGA rally, you could easily get people trying to describe Trump's policies look equally foolish. Charlie Kirk went into these "debates" well-experienced, well-rehearsed, and well-prepared. His "opponents" were not. When you have a debate between two equally skilled and prepared debaters (like Gavin Newsom vs. Ron DeSantis last year), the results are different.

[flockofseagulls104]

No, of course you don't want to define what you consider "racism", because then you would have to defend the indefensible. To you, racism is whatever you say it is, because you are virtuous and those who disagree with you are not.

Our former President in name only (PINO) famously based his decisions on appointing a Supreme Court Justice and his own replacement on the ticket based on the same criteria the UA bragged about. That criteria did not prioritize competence or merit. And it is a valid question whether his two eventual choices were the most qualified for those positions.

As for Charlie's method of debating, he challenged anyone to Prove Him Wrong. He was asking the best and brightest from our elite institutions of learning to convince him his views were mistaken. Not the useful idiots that know nothing about the issues they have been driven to outrage about, but the people who feed them their fodder. Did he do one at Georgia Tech? If so, why didn't you go down and prove to him he was racist? I would have loved to see that. Unfortunately, someone decided to shut him up in a different way.

PS: Now that you have been informed about Media Matters, perhaps you can do some objective research on this group and their methods and understand where many of your mistaken and false information and opinions have come to be and been disseminated from.

PPS: You missed out, SSS. Charlie Kirk did indeed offer you a chance:
To find out when Charlie Kirk held a "Prove Me Wrong" debate at Georgia Tech, consider the following points:

The debate took place on September 19, 2019.
It was organized by the Georgia Tech College Republicans.
The event aimed to engage students in political discourse.
Kirk is known for his conservative viewpoints and public speaking.
The debate format encouraged audience participation and questions.
It attracted significant attention on campus and social media.

TPUSA has promised to continue the college tours. I am not sure if they will be in the same format, but some high profile people like Meghan Kelly, Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson will apparently take Charlie's place. Perhaps you would like to debate them?

[silverscreenselect]

As for Charlie's method of debating, he challenged anyone to Prove Him Wrong.

I've seen numerous valid critiques of Kirk's debating style. This is one of the better ones (I've edited it to remove some material about his death.)

Kirk uses a very cynical and biased version of the Socratic method of debate, by which he asks leading, unrelated, or flawed questions in an attempt to elicit a series of responses from the opponent so he could find some contradiction in the answers to use as proof that the entire argument is invalid. More than that, he almost always offers an idea or question without any factual evidence to back it up (like the quote I referenced about blacks targeting white people), then pokes holes in counterpoints that use evidence. This is a particularly sleazy way of arguing, and one that is hard to spot. It’s like when he said that black women don’t have enough brain processing power and only get jobs because of DEI. He didn’t offer any evidence of it, yet expected his opponent to provide evidence that the claim is false.

The problem was that Kirk used spurious, misleading, and frequently flat out incorrect arguments and relied on logical fallacies, straw man, ad hominem, gish gallop, appeal to ignorance, and false equivalency among others. For example, in a “debate” about gender equity and women’s rights he asked whether a woman has a prostate. A question that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the question of gender equity, unless the presence of a prostate is somehow relevant.

Hucksters manipulate the Socratic method quite easily by employing shady tactics, volume, speaking over others, and then asking a barrage of logically flawed, unrelated, and irrelevant questions in rapid fire to overwhelm the other person with so much bullshit it’s impossible to respond to it all (that’s his main weapon, also called “Gish gallop”. This is what Kirk does. What begins as a debate about gender equity ends up being about trying to score points asking for a definition of “woman”.

Is that clever? Sure, I suppose. But only if one isn’t actually debating or willing to stick to a subject and present a good-faith position. And it certainly isn’t evidence of high intellect or a defensible opinion. But then again, Kirk doesn’t want to engage in debate. It’s all propaganda and content he could monetize by owning the libs in a way that gullible people like his followers mistake for intelligence, but which is actually a series of accusations relying on logical fallacy to support.

I'd point out that the very name of Kirk's debates, "Prove Me Wrong," demonstrated the flaw in his style. Rather than try to defend his comments, he turned the debate on his opponent, who was usually not skilled enough at debating to reverse the course of the argument. Those who were able to put Kirk on the defensive had the greatest success against him.

[tlynn78]

As for Charlie's method of debating, he challenged anyone to Prove Him Wrong.

I've seen numerous valid critiques of Kirk's debating style. This is one of the better ones (I've edited it to remove some material about his death.)

Kirk uses a very cynical and biased version of the Socratic method of debate, by which he asks leading, unrelated, or flawed questions in an attempt to elicit a series of responses from the opponent so he could find some contradiction in the answers to use as proof that the entire argument is invalid. More than that, he almost always offers an idea or question without any factual evidence to back it up (like the quote I referenced about blacks targeting white people), then pokes holes in counterpoints that use evidence. This is a particularly sleazy way of arguing, and one that is hard to spot. It’s like when he said that black women don’t have enough brain processing power and only get jobs because of DEI. He didn’t offer any evidence of it, yet expected his opponent to provide evidence that the claim is false.

The problem was that Kirk used spurious, misleading, and frequently flat out incorrect arguments and relied on logical fallacies, straw man, ad hominem, gish gallop, appeal to ignorance, and false equivalency among others. For example, in a “debate” about gender equity and women’s rights he asked whether a woman has a prostate. A question that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the question of gender equity, unless the presence of a prostate is somehow relevant.

Hucksters manipulate the Socratic method quite easily by employing shady tactics, volume, speaking over others, and then asking a barrage of logically flawed, unrelated, and irrelevant questions in rapid fire to overwhelm the other person with so much bullshit it’s impossible to respond to it all (that’s his main weapon, also called “Gish gallop”. This is what Kirk does. What begins as a debate about gender equity ends up being about trying to score points asking for a definition of “woman”.

Is that clever? Sure, I suppose. But only if one isn’t actually debating or willing to stick to a subject and present a good-faith position. And it certainly isn’t evidence of high intellect or a defensible opinion. But then again, Kirk doesn’t want to engage in debate. It’s all propaganda and content he could monetize by owning the libs in a way that gullible people like his followers mistake for intelligence, but which is actually a series of accusations relying on logical fallacy to support.

I'd point out that the very name of Kirk's debates, "Prove Me Wrong," demonstrated the flaw in his style. Rather than try to defend his comments, he turned the debate on his opponent, who was usually not skilled enough at debating to reverse the course of the argument. Those who were able to put Kirk on the defensive had the greatest success against him.

For real debate, ground rules need to be established. Debating "gender equity" with someone who can't define "wonan" is utterly pointless.