Is an example of the right extreme!??

It looks like Kirk got shot because he didn’t hate with enough vehemence to satisfy the shooter!


“According to Utah officials + police interviews with his family, Tyler Robinson hated Charlie Kirk because Kirk wasn't conservative enough. (Robinson reportedly admired Nick Fuentes). GOPer's now scrubbing X posts about dems faster than DOJ erases Trump name in Epstein files,” he said on X, platform formerly known as Twitter. The post went viral. It has been retweeted nearly 10k time at the time of writing this story.”

Dumbest thing^^^I have ever heard. Read the cartridge engravings.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Dumbest thing^^^I have ever heard. Read the cartridge engravings.

One bullet was engraved with the phrase “Hey fascist! Catch!" but it does not appear to be a left-wing "antifa" message as Republicans originally claimed. Instead, it seems to be a reference to a satirical slogan in the popular video game Helldivers 2. Video games are a crucial cornerstone of the bizarre groyper worldview, along with misogyny and racism.

If your assertion had an iota of merit…the idiot would have picked a target more misaligned with his views to give his life up for. What allege makes no sense.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If your assertion had an iota of merit…the idiot would have picked a target more misaligned with his views to give his life up for. What allege makes no sense.

His assertion regarding the reference to the game is correct. Read more.

Your whole narrative on whose to blame for your hero getting shot has fallen apart. White, male, Republican-raised, from a MAGA family, a gun nut, etc etc etc. was responsible.

Get over it. He was a crazy person. Not a right wing nut or a left wing nut....just a nut.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If your assertion had an iota of merit…the idiot would have picked a target more misaligned with his views to give his life up for. What allege makes no sense.

Nope, makes no sense. Neither does an shooting in broad daylight with video cameras running.
Sometimes it doesn't pay to look for reason where it's probably been subsumed by passion.
I'll keep waiting for a motive to come to light, with admissible evidence.

when all the trumpers thought it had to be a Trans Democrat before the blood was even cleaned up,,,"Kill em ,,It's War Now ,,Death to all of them " ,,,,then after it turns out to be one of their own ,,a Maggot ,,",Charlie would have wanted us to pray for the shooter",,,

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If your assertion had an iota of merit…the idiot would have picked a target more misaligned with his views to give his life up for. What allege makes no sense.

His assertion regarding the reference to the game is correct. Read more.

Your whole narrative on whose to blame for your hero getting shot has fallen apart. White, male, Republican-raised, from a MAGA family, a gun nut, etc etc etc. was responsible.

Get over it. He was a crazy person. Not a right wing nut or a left wing nut....just a nut.

Lane just can't accept this was not a liberal.

Lane's hate is identical to Kirk's.

You can't change stupid.

My father, a very senior ex police officer and NZs first trained hostage negotiator on hearing of the shooting and shooter.

it will be a young man who does not have the mental age to fully realise what hes done. He will go to court and suddenly the death penalty will hit him and then he will start to understand. When its too late.

It's a sign of the juvenility of the whole thing that we take any notice of the politics of a kid.
Greta Thunberg anyone?

Interesting observation Shanks, and imho, bang on.

.

always easy to try to find an excuse when it is coming from your own camp. if he was a leftie that will be no excuses given ...

Left shit
Right shit
Same shit

Clear enough for you, m Ed v Ed ?

.

This thread makes no sense.
Robinson shot kirk for not being "right" enough?
He, Robinson, was living with/in a relationship with a transgender man transitioning to a woman.
And robinson wanted him to be tougher on trans people?
I just dont get your thought process.

Details are sounding more and more like Kirk's murder is indeed a trans or other alternative life choice thing.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
always easy to try to find an excuse when it is coming from your own camp. if he was a leftie that will be no excuses given ...

Can you find anywhere where I have made a judgement on what camp the shooter was in?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
This thread makes no sense.
Robinson shot kirk for not being "right" enough?
He, Robinson, was living with/in a relationship with a transgender man transitioning to a woman.
And robinson wanted him to be tougher on trans people?
I just dont get your thought process.

Hers what I guess. And it's only a guess.

What I heard was the father contacted police and told them to go see the killers room mate.

Im presuming thats his partner. This person was being sent txts about the killing from the killer.

So the room mate or partner- regardless of sexual orientation or political beliefs most likely did the right thing and contacted the father who had worked in the sheriffs office.
The father did the right thing in contacting the police and the room mate again did the right thing by giving full access to their phone.

So regardless of any politics or beliefs and being two of the closest people too the killer, they stood up for democracy and the law.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
always easy to try to find an excuse when it is coming from your own camp. if he was a leftie that will be no excuses given ...

Can you find anywhere where I have made a judgement on what camp the shooter was in?

i did not quote you but if you felt about it that is your problem ...

It's all good Phil. I know I havnt but just wanted to prove you were full of shit and prone to making baseless claims. Another one who needs to get a room with 4WD.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
It's all good Phil. I know I havnt but just wanted to prove you were full of shit and prone to making baseless claims. Another one who needs to get a room with 4WD.

lol while i preach no censorship you seems have a problem with that ... i learnt many years ago i do not have prove anything to the idiots supporting trump and the cult of the supreme leader ...

I have no clue about what the word salad you just wrote means.

I suspect you dont either.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I have no clue about what the word salad you just wrote means.

I suspect you dont either.

I didn't have any problem understanding his words there.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I have no clue about what the word salad you just wrote means.

I suspect you dont either.

I didn't have any problem understanding his words there.

It must be a liberal thing then.

Tell me how as a reply to me asking him to show where and how Im a racist, and calling him out on it. It makes any sense?

Because I can't see a link or acceptable reply in it.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I have no clue about what the word salad you just wrote means.

I suspect you dont either.

I didn't have any problem understanding his words there.

certainly a reason why most of the time the supporters of the cult of the supreme leader are claiming they do not understand me when it is not fitting their agenda lol

He first says, if I may paraphrase, that you seem to have a problem with the fact he doesn't preach censorship.

His next sentence says he learned years ago that he does not have prove anything to the idiots supporting trump and the cult of the supreme leader.

It's not hard to understand even for conservatives.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
He first says, if I may paraphrase, that you seem to have a problem with the fact he doesn't preach censorship.

His next sentence says he learned years ago that he does not have prove anything to the idiots supporting trump and the cult of the supreme leader.

It's not hard to understand even for conservatives.

Now how is that relevant too me? How does it reply too Me asking him to stand behind his accusation of racism?

Where have I ever exhibited any commentary on his attitude to censorship?

And given Ive never sup[ported trump or "TheCult", how is it relevant?

SO its word salad that means nothing to me and does not address in any way his accusations.

So if you see some relevance in it, please show me. I thought you were more intelligent than that?

It's not the first time I've seen ships passing in the night.

He wanted to talk about his issues, while you want to discuss yours.

At least that's how it looks to my lesser intelligence.

Yep well to me it looks like you saw the chance to have a cheap shot too, from behind his back, and now back out without an acceptable answer, because there isn't one unless you agree with me. Which you can't do.
And so you waffle on about ships in the night, which is more word salad

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
He first says, if I may paraphrase, that you seem to have a problem with the fact he doesn't preach censorship.

His next sentence says he learned years ago that he does not have prove anything to the idiots supporting trump and the cult of the supreme leader.

It's not hard to understand even for conservatives.

glad you at least understood my gibberish and thank you so much to demonstrate there is always hope of course aside of the idiots supporting trump and his cult ...

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yep well to me it looks like you saw the chance to have a cheap shot too, from behind his back, and now back out without an acceptable answer, because there isn't one unless you agree with me. Which you can't do.
And so you waffle on about ships in the night, which is more word salad

I never said he answered your questions. No one here has an obligation to answer someone else's question.

All I said was that I understood what he wrote. That doesn't mean I have the obligation to bow to your interrogation.

I think you don't understand "word salad," which is why you overuse the term.

As for "ships passing in the night," you might look up the expression...and enlightenment may dawn.

Or not.

No, No one has any obligation. But if they make accusations and refuse to back them up we can draw acceptable conclusions from that.

The same applies for yourself. He replied with nonsense and you decided to try and add legitimacy too it. For what reason?

then refuse to back it up and go off into the abstract.
So I draw an acceptable conclusion.

You've succeeded in confusing me.

Again, all I said was that I UNDERSTOOD his post. I didn't say it was relevant or that he answered your questions.

I don't understand why you are hot about that. Or what I'm supposed to back up.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
You've succeeded in confusing me.

Again, all I said was that I UNDERSTOOD his post. I didn't say it was relevant or that he answered your questions.

I don't understand why you are hot about that. Or what I'm supposed to back up.

Then why if you agree it wasn't relevant, or answer the questions. And on another false set of statements. Why Get involved and add legitimacy to It?

Being called a racist is an unpleasant experience and I doubt you would find it acceptable for yourself.
So what made you think supporting him rather than refute an unfounded accusation was the correct reply to push post on?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
You've succeeded in confusing me.

Again, all I said was that I UNDERSTOOD his post. I didn't say it was relevant or that he answered your questions.

I don't understand why you are hot about that. Or what I'm supposed to back up.

Then why if you agree it wasn't relevant, or answer the questions. And on another false set of statements. Why Get involved and add legitimacy to It?

Being called a racist is an unpleasant experience and I doubt you would find it acceptable for yourself.
So what made you think supporting him rather than refute an unfounded accusation was the correct reply to push post on?

confused to not get the support from others ... you are not anymore at school to cry when you felt bullied by someone ... you should jeffe to help you out ...

Learn to read Idiot! What Im saying is that he chose to support lies rather than stand up for the truth.

His morals seem dictated by political grouping.

Where as you have all ready admitted I dont feel the need to always agree with other conservatives.

So your second accusation there is a lie by your own hand too.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yep well to me it looks like you saw the chance to have a cheap shot too, from behind his back, and now back out without an acceptable answer, because there isn't one unless you agree with me. Which you can't do.
And so you waffle on about ships in the night, which is more word salad

I never said he answered your questions. No one here has an obligation to answer someone else's question. All I said was that I understood what he wrote. That doesn't mean I have the obligation to bow to your interrogation.

I think you don't understand "word salad," which is why you overuse the term.

As for "ships passing in the night," you might look up the expression...and enlightenment may dawn.

Or not.

truth can not be worded better ...

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
You've succeeded in confusing me.

Again, all I said was that I UNDERSTOOD his post. I didn't say it was relevant or that he answered your questions.

I don't understand why you are hot about that. Or what I'm supposed to back up.

Then why if you agree it wasn't relevant, or answer the questions. And on another false set of statements. Why Get involved and add legitimacy to It?

Being called a racist is an unpleasant experience and I doubt you would find it acceptable for yourself.
So what made you think supporting him rather than refute an unfounded accusation was the correct reply to push post on?

I don't understand your first sentence: "Then why if you agree it wasn't relevant, or answer the questions."

I didn't add legitimacy to his posts, I simply took issue with your statement that he posted word salad. I think you're hot now and being oversensitive to any disagreement with you.

He's a non-native English speaker, and it's not realistic or fair to expect perfection in his words.

I haven't followed this argument closely and never intended to comment on the merits of either party's position.

I used the term Word salad, because his attacks and comments appear schizophrenic.


If you havnt followed an argument or discussion, Why get involved before reading to understand.

hes quoting your responses as affirmations. thereby you gave him legitimacy.

I understand his English is a second language, and in the past ive given him leniency for that. But at some point he must take responsibility for the words he uses and the accusations he makes.

Given todays discourse between Medved and I, How would you take this response Rolland?

quote:

next time i will be in auckland visiting some of our friends i will be sending kisses and love. take care.