Okay, let's see...

• 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.
Umm... I hate to break it to you... but that's what the Dems are doing. The logic is sound based on what the Dems propose. They want to ship in millions of illegal immigrants without verifying every one, and then they want to give them free healthcare and education. Something our country can't afford. And now these leftist cities and states want to give these illegals the ability to vote.So, explain to me why I shouldn't read into this as trying to replace the American vote so they can win elections.

• The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
I truly believe this. There is a reason the Democrat party's ideology has constantly moved further and further left. And the fact that leftists actively hate white people... I don't see how this statement is incorrect, let alone "heinous". These opinions are based in factual premises. Literally each sentence you posted, I could provide multiple premises to that conclusion.

• Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge.
Okay, so now you're just saying anything remotely Christian is "heinous". You do realize this is a standard Christian belief, right? Also, it's the one that feminists like you constantly spout, but yet COMPLETELY ignore verse 25: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Husbands are commanded to literally give our lives up for our wives/familes, and are commanded to "love" our wives as Christ "loves" the church. That form of "love" also comes packaged with MANY more examples, in the scriptures. But, of course, you feminists HATE the idea of accountability or living your lives for something greater than yourselves, because yall worship yourselves.Again... explain to me why this is a "heinous" opinion.

• If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they're coming out and they're saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
I hate to break it to you, but those are all examples of DEI in action. Are they DEI simply because they're black women? No. Kirk used them as examples of DEI because the literal discussion around each one and their position was centered on their race and gender. When Biden says he will only choose a black woman for VP or a Judge then, by definition, those hires are DEI.I can see you not liking that statement and disagreeing with it, but calling it "heinous"?I happen to completely agree with him. Those are DEI hires.By definition: living in a world with race/gender quotas will inevitably lead to less-qualified people in those roles. I don't understand why leftists have such an inability to understand this concept.

• I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I've thought about it, we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
This is one I challenge you on. You specifically did what you said you were going to do, you took a quote completely out of context. You quoted him saying, "...but I can defend it..." but yet you didn't include his defense on why he was saying that. I've seen many CK debates and every answer that comes this close to be controversial is bookended with long explanations, definitions, and walking everyone through his logic. And yet you took that and gave us the single sentence. One of Charlie's greatest positives during debates is that he constantly asked people to define their terms when they came up, so there was a better chance at understanding each other. You could at least provide him the same privilege.I would pose this challenge to you. When making posts like this, insulting the memory of a beloved man who was assassinated, maybe start from a point of view of trying to understand the argument of the person you think is so incredibly wicked. Perhaps watch the entire video instead of pulling a single sentence with absolutely ZERO premises showing us how he got to that conclusion.

• While criticizing YouTuber Ms. Rachel for quoting "love your neighbor" to defend celebrating pride month, Charlie Kirk quoted a Bible verse used to justify stoning gay people "to death." Kirk called the stoning verse, "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.
This proves to me that you are literally googling or using an LLM to search: "Tell me the controversial things Charlie said." Because this particular point you are trying to make as already been disproven to the nth degree. Hell, Stephen King literally posted an apology after posting the same thing after someone actually showed him the clip. Kudos to the leftist Stephen King for accepting fact when he watched the video, and not try to worm his way out of the hole he dug, unlike what you are doing right now.On top of that, I would direct you to this video on Charlie's beliefs on homosexuals:

• Charlie Kirk Tells 14-Year-Old Girl She Should Go to College Not to Study But Just to 'Get an MRS Degree'
This was obviously a tongue in cheek thing he told her. Again, go watch the video and look at Charlie's demeanor. I've watch many CK videos and can tell you why he said that. (1) He believes that modern higher education is a scam. He believed the vast majority of majors and classes in American universities are useless (which they are). (2) He also believed that young people need to get back to getting married young and having babies. If you disagree with that belief, then okay, but I don't see why that is such a "heinous" opinion. He truly believes women are happiest when they are in a loving marriage and have babies. Because he wanted what he believed was best for American men and women, he would ALWAYS encouraged men and women to get married. With those two opinions, I don't understand why the opinion is so "heinous".

• "Why has he not been bailed out?" Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul with a hammer. "By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out, I bet his bail's like thirty or forty thousand bucks."
And yet again, you didn't post the full thing, just the punchline. Immediately after the sentence you posted, he said, "Bail him out, and then go ask him some questions." He also said this, during the same segment, "I'm not qualifying it. I think it's awful. It's not right," Kirk said. "But why is it that in Chicago you're able to commit murder and be out the next day? Why is it that you're able to trespass, second-degree murder, arson, threaten a public official, cashless bail. This happens all over San Francisco. But if you go after the Pelosis, oh, you're [not] let out immediately. Got it."It is obvious he was doing two things, here. (1) He was pointing out how cashless bail was used for Soros-funded rioters from BLM, Antifa, and many other organizations. He was pointing out how, the bail is probably super high for this person because leftist-controlled San Francisco doesn't want him out and about. One of the biggest reasons Kirk wanted him bailed out was so (2) we could as him "some questions". Namely, he wanted this whole situation cleared up because of all the spin and gaslighting that was going on at the time. You had left-wing media saying the guy was MAGA and you had right-wing media saying he was a leftist. No one knew this guy's story. Also, most of the mocking that was going on about the Paul Pelosi ordeal was in regards to the situation of both men being in their underwear in the home. C'mon man... that's just a weird situation. We STILL don't know what the hell was going on there.

Again, the examples you gave were easily Googled because they are the standard examples leftists use because they pulled them from leftist talking points. You don't have issues with all of those things because you were just listening to the debates and heard the points. You specifically went to a leftist site, Google or ChatGPT (all left-leaning) and asked for examples of why leftists hate Charlie Kirk.

I know this because you used examples that have been publicly debunked. I bet you also still prescribe to the "fine people on both sides" and the "russiagate" hoaxes. I honestly don't know how to logically defend my side when you just blindly refuse to accept fact or truth.

But I want to now focus in on what you said about Charlie. His views were "heinous". Webster defines heinous as: hatefully or shockingly evil. Explain "evil" to me from a leftist point of view. Explain how you come to the determination of "evil". And explain to me how Charlie was either "hatefully evil" or "shockingly evil"?

Charlie shared the beliefs/opinions of a massive percentage of this country. Possibly up to 50% of the country. So you believe that half the country is hatefully or shockingly evil, while your side calls for violence against those same people. A brainwashed leftists took that message to heart and killed Charlie Kirk. Your response? Double down.

There is an "evil" side in this debate, and it's not the one that has spent the last 3 weeks in prayer with peaceful vigils.

M.C. Swag said:

---

5 paragraphs!

---

Most are one or two lines - that was to help you on reading comprehension.

And again you failed to respond - can't even point out where I insulted you before an accusation you made that I directly called out.

So tiresome

Oops four "paragraphs". Yet somehow you think. a one word retort with an ! is relevant.

M.C. Swag said:

---

Dude seriously just google it. He's said all kinds of racist **** including the promotion of the Great Replacement Theory. On top of that he's incredibly misogynistic and mocked other acts of political violence (paul pelosi). Like take your ****ing pick.

---

Nope.

I have googled them and in context none of them are what you claim.

I dont personally think that context makes the pelosi bit all that much better tbh. Its kinda crazy that I'd seen all the other talking points (and the rebuttals) but not that one.

I dont have much of a dog in this fight though. Kirk wasn't my cup of tea and I can't pretend that he was, but its horrific that he was murdered.full stop.

I hope that I never reach a level of fame where the internet scours for everything I've ever written or said to endlessly debate on whether or not I was a good person.

I see... so you've never been facetious or tongue-in-cheek on a sensitive subject, in your life? Paul Pelosi was not murdered by this man. Also, calling for someone to bail him out doesn't mean he is released from trial for the crime. I don't think some of you understand how the legal system works.

You are arrested based on probable cause. There is then a probable cause hearing, in front of a judge, to determine if there is enough probable cause to hold you for the alleged crime. If a bail is set, then you are free to post the bail and walk out of the jail until your hearing. If you show up to your trial for the full completion and conviction or judgement, then you get your bail back. If you don't show up, you forfeit your bail money.

It is at the trial where the actual conviction, acquittal, or other offering is presented.

Charlie didn't say the attacker should be let go. He simply said someone should bail him out so we can actually talk to him and get the story. I honestly don't see why that's such a bad thing, especially when he made the point that the policies in leftist cities mean all manner of alleged career criminals, with multiple convictions, have an easy path to get back on the streets to commit more crimes.

It's so sweet of you to explain to me how the justice system works. I could have never understood it without you!

Sure seemed like you needed it if you think that statement is so awful.

I think suggesting its patriotic to bail someone out of jail for political violence against a geriatric person is a dick thing to say. Not sure why that implies I don't understand due process.

I live in a city where bail is handed out to violent criminals way too easily and has terrible ramifications. I understand the point he was making and likely I agree with his overall viewpoint. Its still a bad thing to say.

Lathspell said:

---

I see... so you've never been facetious or tongue-in-cheek on a sensitive subject, in your life? Paul Pelosi was not murdered by this man. Also, calling for someone to bail him out doesn't mean he is released from trial for the crime. I don't think some of you understand how the legal system works.

You are arrested based on probable cause. There is then a probable cause hearing, in front of a judge, to determine if there is enough probable cause to hold you for the alleged crime. If a bail is set, then you are free to post the bail and walk out of the jail until your hearing. If you show up to your trial for the full completion and conviction or judgement, then you get your bail back. If you don't show up, you forfeit your bail money.

It is at the trial where the actual conviction, acquittal, or other offering is presented.

Charlie didn't say the attacker should be let go. He simply said someone should bail him out so we can actually talk to him and get the story. I honestly don't see why that's such a bad thing, especially when he made the point that the policies in leftist cities mean all manner of alleged career criminals, with multiple convictions, have an easy path to get back on the streets to commit more crimes.

---

So if you walked in on a guy beating the **** out of your mother with a hammer, you'd be OK with a talk show host suggesting someone bail the guy out so we could better understand his motivation?

Why did the hypothetical go from a man to a woman? Is it because you too think the situation with Paul Pelosi was extremely strange?

If my mom was a congresswoman, was still married to my dad, and the cops showed up to a situation where both my dad and and some random guy were walking around in their underwear, and then no one would answer my questions about what the hell was going on... then yes, I would be okay with a talk show host asking for someone to post bail for the guy so we could get some answers.

what are you talking about? That's not what happened at all.

Lathspell said:

---

Why did the hypothetical go from a man to a woman? Is it because you too think the situation with Paul Pelosi was extremely strange?

If my mom was a congresswoman, was still married to my dad, and the cops showed up to a situation where both my dad and and some random guy were walking around in their underwear, and then no one would answer my questions about what the hell was going on... then yes, I would be okay with a talk show host asking for someone to post bail for the guy so we could get some answers.

---

I didn't know what your answer would be, that's why I asked the question. Your response does answer a lot of questions for me though, so thanks for that.

I'm talking about what was being reported at the time. That's the whole point. Police didn't release the video of the incident for 3 months. Charlie made that statement less than two weeks after it happened because of all the rumors flying around about it from the media.

And I didn't realize i was responding to Porkchop, before, which I do not do. So that will be the end for me.

It can't be.

He said he was quitting this place.

This thread sucks.

We still don't know the reason for Lathspell's name change.

Its so much more interesting than all this drivel this thread has turned into