M.C. Swag said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

There are numerous examples of Kirk having civil conversations with people of other races and orientations,

---

There are numerous examples of Trump interacting with women appropriately, yet...

---

Dude, he was always civil...especially compared to the unhinged temper tantrum throwing leftists who would show up and scream threats and personal insults. I am convinced that some of yall are just getting notes from Rachel Maddow or Don Lemon or Whoopi Goldberg and never bothered to listen to the guy interact with people.

The truth is, as reasonable old school democrats like Bill Maher are now screaming from the rooftops, that pretty much all the left has at this point is shouting and insults and attempts to silence the right because they are increasingly devoid of logic and reason. EVERY SINGLE US SENATOR supports biological males in my daughter's sports, showers and locker rooms. That is IN-SANE. And you cannot win a debate on that topic if that is the side you are on. So you have to scream and gnash teeth and shout "bigot/transphobe/racist/whatever".

Can't win in the free market of ideals so the left has to control the media and so many institutions and dominate higher learning and target the youth. They have violently run many conservatives off campus at places like UC Berkeley and other liberal schools. The wisest progressive in the world would get SMOKED by someone like Charlie Kirk because they cling to straight up ABSURD positions with a religious devotion. It's pretty shocking to witness over time.

The best and brightest liberals in all of the land literally cannot tell you what a woman is, and they will say that men can get pregnant. Now, I don't know if Neil Degrasse Tyson actually believes this preposterous nonsense, or if he just doesn't want to potentially rock the boat...as he is universally admired by crazy leftists. I like to believe it's the latter, but that is still cowardly and pathetic.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

There are numerous examples of Kirk having civil conversations with people of other races and orientations,

---

There are numerous examples of Trump interacting with women appropriately, yet...

---

Dude, he was always civil...especially compared to the unhinged temper tantrum throwing leftists who would show up and scream threats and personal insults. I am convinced that some of yall are just getting notes from Rachel Maddow or Don Lemon or Whoopi Goldberg and never bothered to listen to the guy interact with people.

The truth is, as reasonable old school democrats like Bill Maher are now screaming from the rooftops, that pretty much all the left has at this point is shouting and insults and attempts to silence the right because they are increasingly devoid of logic and reason. EVERY SINGLE US SENATOR supports biological males in my daughter's sports, showers and locker rooms. That is IN-SANE. And you cannot win a debate on that topic if that is the side you are on. So you have to scream and gnash teeth and shout "bigot/transphobe/racist/whatever".

Can't win in the free market of ideals so the left has to control the media and so many institutions and dominate higher learning and target the youth. They have violently run many conservatives off campus at places like UC Berkeley and other liberal schools. The wisest progressive in the world would get SMOKED by someone like Charlie Kirk because they cling to straight up ABSURD positions with a religious devotion. It's pretty shocking to witness over time.

The best and brightest liberals in all of the land literally cannot tell you what a woman is, and they will say that men can get pregnant. Now, I don't know if Neil Degrasse Tyson actually believes this preposterous nonsense, or if he just doesn't want to potentially rock the boat...as he is universally admired by crazy leftists. I like to believe it's the latter, but that is still cowardly and pathetic.

---

Speaking of civil, when will he pay his $88.3 Million to E. Jean Carroll

In your opinion, what were his heinous ideas? Serious question, I just want to gauge how far apart we are. It will be hard to understand people positions on this whole thing without understanding what their thoughts are about the underlying event/man.

Give him some time, he will need to go copy paste these from someone on Bluesky.

If you genuinely have to ask, then I'm good. This thread has enough non sense. Plus I've reached by BlueSky data limit.

This is their usual tactic.

claim he was all kinds of terrible things including spreading hate to specific groups, mocking them, or supporting radical ideas.

and then when asked for specifics they act like thats incomprehensible and should be obvious - because they cannot find any such evidence.

typical subject avoidance - their minds are made up and the lack of evidence is immaterial to them

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

This is their usual tactic.

claim he was all kinds of terrible things including spreading hate to specific groups, mocking them, or supporting radical ideas.

and then when asked for specifics they act like thats incomprehensible and should be obvious - because they cannot find any such evidence.

typical subject avoidance - their minds are made up and the lack of evidence is immaterial to them

---

I know it's probably hard to imagine, but I don't find it worth it to respond to what will be a fruitless "conversation."

So you can freely enjoy your sense of superiority because I simply would rather not engage in an TexAgs debate about whether Charlie Kirk said awful **** or not because I "don't have the context."

Thanks for proving his point.

M.C. Swag said:

---

If you genuinely have to ask, then I'm good. This thread has enough non sense. Plus I've reached by BlueSky data limit.

---

I asked in good faith and in a completely nonconfrontational manner. Im not sure why you're opposed to answering me as I'm genuinely curious what you believe his heinous statements were.

Sea Speed said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

If you genuinely have to ask, then I'm good. This thread has enough non sense. Plus I've reached by BlueSky data limit.

---

I asked in good faith and in a completely nonconfrontational manner. Im not sure why you're opposed to answering me as I'm genuinely curious what you believe his heinous statements were.

---

Because I'm going to post 8-10 clips/quotes and then you'll hyper focus on 1 or 2 about the 'missing context' and 'what he meant' with maybe a counter example of something terrible a lib has said or done. Like, it's not worth either of our time.

M.C. Swag said:

---

I don't find it worth it to respond to what will be a fruitless "conversation."

---

You seemed perfectly willing to participate in the conversation, engage other posters, and invest your time into the discussion until you were asked to provide evidence for your claims?

Yall are still doing this? Lol

Yup. Typical.

they never have a response it isn't unique.

when challenged on those beliefs they simply revert to incredulity at being questioned. it never fails. at best they try some air of superiority tactic like i don't have time for the likes of you or if you don't get it i can't explain it to you. backhanded condescending without any proof.

CC09LawAg said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

I don't find it worth it to respond to what will be a fruitless "conversation."

---

You seemed perfectly willing to participate in the conversation, engage other posters, and invest your time into the discussion until you were asked to provide evidence for your claims?

---

You guys just can't help yourselves. I was willing to explain WHY i wouldnt engage this because 2 things are gonna happen:

• You're gonna bend over backwards to provide "context" and "meaning" to soften the words of what was actually said.

Or worse (and more likely)

• You're gonna just outright agree with the posted sentiment and find nothing wrong with anything he said on its face.

In which case there's no point. It'd be like if a Longhorn fan said Arch Manning is better than Johnny. The fundamental breakdown of 'opinion' is so wide there's literally nothing to be gained. In fact, by me simply NOT saying I want to engage, I've got Zombie Jon Snow big mad and throwing insults. For me simply NOT engaging. The second I do, he or crazy chicken will write 6 paragraphs about DEI and why the left are ruining the country. I'm all good.

M.C. Swag said:

---

CC09LawAg said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

I don't find it worth it to respond to what will be a fruitless "conversation."

---

You seemed perfectly willing to participate in the conversation, engage other posters, and invest your time into the discussion until you were asked to provide evidence for your claims?

---

You guys just can't help yourselves. I was willing to explain WHY i wouldnt engage this because 2 things are gonna happen:

• You're gonna bend over backwards to provide "context" and "meaning" to soften the words of what was actually said.

Or worse (and more likely)

• You're gonna just outright agree with the posted sentiment and find nothing wrong with anything he said on its face.

In which case there's no point. It'd be like if a Longhorn fan said Arch Manning is better than Johnny. The fundamental breakdown of 'opinion' is so wide there's literally nothing to be gained. In fact, by me simply NOT saying I want to engage, I've got Zombie Jon Snow big mad and throwing insults. For me simply NOT engaging. The second I do, he or crazy chicken will write 6 paragraphs about DEI and why the left are ruining the country. I'm all good.

---

Your words:

Quote:

---

He was a private citizen with a large political platform that preached a litany of heinous ideas.

---

That isn't an opinion. That is you stating something as fact. You can have the opinion that you don't agree with him or have a different view. You can't state that he PREACHED HEINOUS IDEAS without proving it or your related opinion about him is worthless.

Asking you to provide the basis for that statement isn't a debate of ideas. It is asking you to back up what you are saying and believe and what you base your opinion on.

Then replying and saying you don't want to engage is subject avoidance at it's finest.

And we go round and round because ya'll never provide receipts.

I also made no personal insults - simply calling you out for not responding is not an insult. The fact that you think it is, is equally incredulous. I made statements about libs in general and how they all react in a similar way when pressed.

M.C. Swag said:

---

CC09LawAg said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

I don't find it worth it to respond to what will be a fruitless "conversation."

---

You seemed perfectly willing to participate in the conversation, engage other posters, and invest your time into the discussion until you were asked to provide evidence for your claims?

---

You guys just can't help yourselves. I was willing to explain WHY i wouldnt engage this because 2 things are gonna happen:

• You're gonna bend over backwards to provide "context" and "meaning" to soften the words of what was actually said.

Or worse (and more likely)

• You're gonna just outright agree with the posted sentiment and find nothing wrong with anything he said on its face.

In which case there's no point. It'd be like if a Longhorn fan said Arch Manning is better than Johnny. The fundamental breakdown of 'opinion' is so wide there's literally nothing to be gained. In fact, by me simply NOT saying I want to engage, I've got Zombie Jon Snow big mad and throwing insults. For me simply NOT engaging. The second I do, he or crazy chicken will write 6 paragraphs about DEI and why the left are ruining the country. I'm all good.

---

I seriously want you to post something.. like.. really.

Let this person say it's out of context.. I don't care, I really want to see examples of what someone like you thinks fits your accusations of Kirk.

There is a ton to be gained here. It's a way to look/hear through someone else's eyes/ears, and a lack of providing SOME sort of example really devalues your statements.

I would never accuse someone of anything if I didn't have something to backup my claim. What is an example of one of Kirk's heinous claims?

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.

Well I asked you for specific things he said so I could get your position on what types of things you find heinous. That would inform the rest of the conversation. Now I have no idea if you think preaching the word of God is heinous, if you think wanting a wife to submit to their husband is heinous or his comments about it being ok to be white etc. I was trying not to put words in your mouth by asking you to elaborate with some specific things you found heinous, but instead you put words in mine. Womp womp.

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.

---

LOL, this is so unhinged and dishonest I don't even know where to begin. I can see why posters like this avoid F16. You wouldn't have the receipts to hang.

I think we have to acknowledge the reality here. This country is very divided. There are two types of people in this country:

Those who admire George Floyd and expect everyone to mourn his overdose, but hate Charlie Kirk...and those who admire Charlie Kirk, but think George Floyd was a pregnant-woman-robbing-career felon who poisoned black people and has no business being a martyr or hero of any sort.

From my obvservations, the types of people whose hearts broke for the guy who invaded a pregnant woman's home and terrrozied her at gunpoint, generally HHHATE that people are mourning Charlie Kirk's death. Even without the fake news and deceptive short soundbytes their news outlets and favorite influencers carefully craft for them...they hate that a white Christian family man is being mourned. It truly seems very "racialy charged" to me. Thousands of vids of George Floyd disciples dancing all over Charlie's grave on social media.

I mean, the friendliest response I have seen from liberals is "yeah, he didn't deserve to be shot to death, but he WAS a very racist and bigoted person who constantly spewed hate"...which is totally ridiculous and unfounded altogether. But just imagine these same peoples' reactions if there was a large response of similar nature from prominent conservative figures back around the time George FLoyd OD'd..."yeah, it's sad George Floyd died, but he WAS a pregnant woman robbing thug who poisoned his own community". Even if factual, most people were above these types of responses in the aftermath of his death.

That's not true about George Floyd.

He also held a loaded gun to her very pregnant abdomen.

He's literally a pillar of society and model for future generations.

While tens of thousands of people gathered in the streets to honor him, not wearing masks during a pandemic when in every other setting they harassed anyone that didn't wear a mask.

It's truly a mental disorder.

Sea Speed said:

---

Well I asked you for specific things he said so I could get your position on what types of things you find heinous. That would inform the rest of the conversation. Now I have no idea if you think preaching the word of God is heinous, if you think wanting a wife to submit to their husband is heinous or his comments about it being ok to be white etc. I was trying not to put words in your mouth by asking you to elaborate with some specific things you found heinous, but instead you put words in mine. Womp womp.

---

• 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.
• The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
• Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge.
• 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 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."
• 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.
• Charlie Kirk Tells 14-Year-Old Girl She Should Go to College Not to Study But Just to 'Get an MRS Degree'
• "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."

I'll agree on 1 thing, this is exactly why i refrain from F16 because you guys are insufferable. Congrats on the successful bait! You got me! I'll enjoy reading your dissertations on why each of these are actually not racist, misogynist, or hateful!

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.

---

Well I saw you just put up your own examples, so good for you to sticking to it. I did some research of my own to see what I could find out. I previously took this on thinking that you weren't going to.

To be transparent, I didn't know who Charlie Kirk was before he was assassinated. That isn't meant to belittle him or anyone who admires him, just letting you know that I didn't have a preconceived notion of him before the last month. I've enjoyed some of his YouTube videos of him debating college kids on the open mic that have come up on my feed after his death, although some of that feels like LeBron James going to the playground and letting a bunch of 5th graders know he's ready to take them in a dunk contest.

Trans People
Regardless, I spent the last 20-30 minutes Googling as you suggested, and I didn't find a whole lot of stuff that I found really reprehensible. Most of his more over-the-top stuff seems to revolve around trans people, but my values pretty much align with his, especially on letting them use bathrooms in schools and play sports with the other gender. His quote about the doctors performing the procedures needing "Nuremberg-style trials" is over the top, considering the guys at Nuremburg were murdering millions of people or forcing them to live in sub-human conditions, but that seems like a pretty tame thing to get upset bout.

Gay People
From a personal standpoint, I don't like him saying that God's perfect law involves stoning gay people to death, but if he's a strict Bible-following Christian, I'm not going to deny his right to advocate for defending God's Word as perfection. Over the centuries since the Bible was recorded, there are plenty of things that we don't really adhere to anymore - slavery being probably the top 1, and the animal sacrifices - but while I feel tolerant to people who are gay, I can't say that I'm right and the Bible is wrong with any real sense of validation.

The Civil Rights Act
Taken out of context, he seems like a giant a-hole, but from the extended version, it sounds like he's saying it make everything DEI. My limited experience is how every NFL team has to interview black candidate when they have a head coaching vacancy. It comes across as insulting to everyone from my POV.

Paul Pelosi
This take is total trash and makes Kirk sound like a piece of **** for saying. Saying anything positive about someone attacking an 82-year old man with a hammer is way out of bounds and disgusting, regardless of who the guy is married to.

The Rest
Most of the other things that I found on Twitter or various websites are usually twisted versions of what he really said if you listen to him on a video or a podcast. But that's sort of the problem all over, isn't it? It's the old fashion game of Telephone on a global, real-time scale. What the person actually said versus what the next person tweets they said are rarely the same thing, and the farther the message travels, the more warped it gets.

Just so it doesn't seem like I'm doubting you and championing Kirk's side, the same thing can be said about the Biden "racial jungle" quote which I think is on TexAgs more often than the word "Texas" or the word "Aggie".


He's purported to say: "I don't want my children to grow up in a jungle, a racial jungle."

But what he really said is: "Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point."

Quite a bit different, but that's never the way it gets used in an online forum. You can see the exact verbiage here if you need to independently confirm. There's also the fact that he said this thing while talking about school buses and he said it in 1977, when most of you (but not me) weren't even alive yet.

Anyway, just my 2 cents on a slow Tuesday.