You were being too vague. I did not know you were talking only to me. I was trying not to assume. My positions have not changed. I hope you have many mistakes but little regrets in life like I wish on myself. I wish you no harm or ill even though I disagree with you. I respect you and I defend myself. Live life as if this is your only life. You don’t know if you get another and don’t be embarrassed if heaven actually does exist and there is a loving God who sees you as his child. Have a great day

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Tis better to show a man his faults with words than publicly execute him in front of his family with bullets and let his children watch him seize up and exsanguinate in 5 seconds.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Discourse, not crime. Discourse is not a crime. Discourse MAY be the answer.

that kind of speech ... seriously ...

no but his death doesnt make him an hero ... but again you are choosing the cult of the supreme leader and for that you are a great follower ...

Actually someone trying to make the world a better place and getting killed for it despite the threats does make him a hero to decent people. I didn’t agree with everything he said but he was a hell of a man AND a hero. What supreme leader are you referring to? Trump? I never voted for him. Have a blessed day or bless someone else’s day.

you are writing he is an hero ... and you are asking who s calling him hero lol ... seems you have a problem between posts ...

In his faith, he was trying to get people to see truths and challenge their positions. Trans is a social construct and a sin in his eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . ask gays and transgenders if he was trying to love them. The man was popular because he was controversial. He was controversial in part because he attacked certain groups and took controversial stands. You don’t want to call that hate, fine. But the same logic applies. Attack someone’s lifestyle loud enough and long enough, don’t be surprised if they push back at some point, although murder is never the answer. Louis Farrakhan says controversial things. If someone reacted to that physically would anyone be surprised? Words carry weight. Words have consequences.

That’s fine. But when you want to call someone out for living in sin . . . in your eyes . . . do not be shocked if they react negatively.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
In his faith, he was trying to get people to see truths and challenge their positions. Trans is a social construct and a sin in his eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . ask gays and transgenders if he was trying to love them. The man was popular because he was controversial. He was controversial in part because he attacked certain groups and took controversial stands. You don’t want to call that hate, fine. But the same logic applies. Attack someone’s lifestyle loud enough and long enough, don’t be surprised if they push back at some point, although murder is never the answer. Louis Farrakhan says controversial things. If someone reacted to that physically would anyone be surprised? Words carry weight. Words have consequences.

And he was a sin in their eyes!

He started the hate, because he got paid to do it.

The whole gang of those called ACTIVISTS and INFLUENCERS are nothing but a plague on humanity.

All they care about is how much money they can get from the stupid masses!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That’s fine. But when you want to call someone out for living in sin . . . in your eyes . . . do not be shocked if they react negatively.

Hate is a personal problem, not a death sentence.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That’s fine. But when you want to call someone out for living in sin . . . in your eyes . . . do not be shocked if they react negatively.

Never been to a Protestant church, mike?

Does it matter which church it is?

My experience is with Catholic and fundamentalist Christians, they all seem judgemental and hypocritical to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Does it matter which church it is?

My experience is with Catholic and fundamentalist Christians, they all seem judgemental and hypocritical to me.

In this case, yes. Many Protestant church's are "fire and brimstone" sermons. Never saw such in an orthodox or catholic church

I see MSNBC fired Matthew Dowd because of the woke republican backlash about violent reteric.

He's a republican who worked for George Bush.

Wokeness appears to be a Right Wing disease too.
Don

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Does it matter which church it is?

My experience is with Catholic and fundamentalist Christians, they all seem judgemental and hypocritical to me.

In this case, yes. Many Protestant church's are "fire and brimstone" sermons. Never saw such in an orthodox or catholic church

True, but either way, you a going to hell in a handbasket unless you follow along and don't ask questions.

It's all a matter of degree, don't you think?

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:

Hate is a personal problem, not a death sentence.

That's true.

It's also true that hate has gone beyond personal problem to being a national problem.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Yes. He was a hero and now a martyr. If you disagree I say that’s on you. Ghandi and MLK were heroes too but did and said some things I disagree with too.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
You say he was hating but others say he was trying to love people by telling truths (personal truths or lived experiences in lib speak) using the Socratic method in discourse to challenge people’s assumptions and positions. Again… I didn’t agree with everything he said or did and never voted for Trump. Please stop using this paradigm.

ok i will repeat what you do not understand: there is no love in what i posted on the excerpts of his interventions ... you might not accept it but he was a supporter of trump as well and you stated he was a hero ...

Oh boy.....now, we're comparing Charlie Kirk to MLK and Ghandi.

Kirk would be an infected toenail compared to MLK or Ghandi.....

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Does it matter which church it is?

My experience is with Catholic and fundamentalist Christians, they all seem judgemental and hypocritical to me.

In this case, yes. Many Protestant church's are "fire and brimstone" sermons. Never saw such in an orthodox or catholic church

True, but either way, you a going to hell in a handbasket unless you follow along and don't ask questions.

It's all a matter of degree, don't you think?

And therein lies the actual re-definition of "woke", those who do not follow along, those who question.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Does it matter which church it is?

My experience is with Catholic and fundamentalist Christians, they all seem judgemental and hypocritical to me.

So don't be one! Don't be judgemental or a hypocrite!

From your comments it seems you've got rhe judgemental part down pat.

God's word goes on and on and on and on and on and on about love and forgiveness, humility, gentleness, kindness and on. If some followers like me screw that up it isn't God's doing obviously.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
Kirk would be an infected toenail compared to MLK or Ghandi.....

Rotten thing to say. How would you know? How would sny of us?

Kirk was 30 years old. With his entire life ahead of him who knows what Charlie could have done. What could Charlie have raised his kids to be? What could Charlie have learned with his public engagement?

MLK and Ghandi got decades more than Kirk to mature, learn, change. Evolve.

quote:

With his entire life ahead of him who knows what Charlie could have done. What could Charlie have raised his kids to be? What could Charlie have learned with his public engagement?

Kirk was too busy raking in the bucks to change. Unless people got tired of his schtick... then he'd change it to whatever brought in the money.

The man who said, "I think empathy is a made-up, New Age term” was animal-like, not Godly. Humans and their Creator, if there is one, know empathy. Animals do not.

Not that he deserved to be shot down like one.

Good luck on the moose hunt, Scott. Are you planning to call in a bull? Which of you is the caller?

My moose call sounds terrible, according to other hunters. The moose don't seem to know better because I kept calling them in.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

With his entire life ahead of him who knows what Charlie could have done. What could Charlie have raised his kids to be? What could Charlie have learned with his public engagement?

Kirk was too busy raking in the bucks to change. Unless people got tired of his schtick... then he'd change it to whatever brought in the money.

The man who said, "I think empathy is a made-up, New Age term” was animal-like, not Godly. Humans and their Creator, if there is one, know empathy. Animals do not.

Not that he deserved to be shot down like one.

Good luck on the moose hunt, Scott. Are you planning to call in a bull? Which of you is the caller?

My moose call sounds terrible, according to other hunters. The moose don't seem to know better because I kept calling them in.

Ill be doing the calling, like you, I can be effective. Truthfully, my hearts not in it but if I can help my friend get one ill be happy. Itd be good for him.

If you don't shoot one for yourself, what are you going to do for meat?

I sure miss eating moose.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
If you don't shoot one for yourself, what are you going to do for meat?

I sure miss eating moose.

Well by custom ill get half, but in fact I have quite a bit of deer and elk from lat November's hunt in Montana so ill likely just take a leg or so.

We're heading back to Montana Agatha November.

Yeah, we followed that custom too--every one who helps butcher and pack out the meat gets an equal share.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Tis better to show a man his faults with words than publicly execute him in front of his family with bullets and let his children watch him seize up and exsanguinate in 5 seconds.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Discourse, not crime. Discourse is not a crime. Discourse MAY be the answer.

that kind of speech ... seriously ...

He basically stated he HATES everyone!

Any surprises someone hated him?

Well furriner.....seeing as whenever "stated" any of that......I guess it leaves you looking foolish yet again.....

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Tis better to show a man his faults with words than publicly execute him in front of his family with bullets and let his children watch him seize up and exsanguinate in 5 seconds.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Discourse, not crime. Discourse is not a crime. Discourse MAY be the answer.

that kind of speech ... seriously ...

He basically stated he HATES everyone!

Any surprises someone hated him?

Well furriner.....seeing as whenever "stated" any of that......I guess it leaves you looking foolish yet again.....

like it or not here is what Marine Egan found that might help you to remove some of your bad faith ...

Speaking of lies and liars:

What Kirk said
Several publications have reported that Kirk cited the Bible verse Leviticus 20:13—which calls for the execution of homosexuals—as "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters".

Some reports directly state that Kirk "believed that gay people should be stoned to death".

In one podcast episode, Kirk was noted to have quoted scripture about homosexuality as an "abomination" deserving death.

Broader anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric
This rhetoric was part of a larger pattern of anti-LGBTQ+ commentary from Kirk throughout his career.

He often referred to the LGBTQ+ community as the "LGBTQ agenda" and claimed it was harming children.

He actively campaigned against gender-affirming care and argued that there are only two genders.

Last month, Kirk posted on X (formerly Twitter) that it should be legal to burn a rainbow flag.

==============================================


Leviticus 20:13 is a biblical verse that discusses sexual relations between men and prescribes the death penalty for it, calling the act an "abomination". The text varies slightly across different translations. The New International Version (NIV) describes the act as "detestable," while the English Standard Version (ESV) and King James Version (KJV) use the term "abomination," and all three versions mention the death penalty.

This verse is part of the Holiness Code in Leviticus, which lists offenses punishable by death under Mosaic Law.

The Hebrew term for "abomination" (to'evah) refers to practices forbidden to the Israelites.

Interpretations of Leviticus 20:13 vary. Some view it as a timeless prohibition against homosexual acts, while others place it in its historical context.

==============================================

In another thread you used the Bible New Testament verse John 8:7 as some sort of mitigating factor:

Kirk never mentioned it as such when referring to the Old Testament verse. He considered homo an abomination for which there is no forgiveness.

And it isn't about queers. It's about adultery and forgiveness. It's apples and oranges.


John 8:7 is the verse from the story of the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus says to her accusers, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her".

The full passage in John 8:1–11 describes how the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery to Jesus. Under Mosaic law, the punishment for adultery was stoning. The religious leaders hoped to trap Jesus by asking him for his judgment. If he told them not to stone her, they could accuse him of violating the Law. If he said to stone her, they could accuse him of contradicting his own teachings of mercy.

Instead, Jesus ignored them and began writing on the ground with his finger. When they persisted in questioning him, he stood up and delivered his now-famous line, challenging the person without sin to cast the first stone.

As the accusers heard this, they were "convicted by their own conscience" and left one by one, from the oldest to the youngest, until Jesus was alone with the woman. Jesus then told her, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on, sin no more".

Interpretation and meaning
A challenge to hypocrisy: The statement directly exposed the hypocrisy of the religious leaders. By bringing only the woman and not the man, and by setting a public trap for Jesus, they showed their concern was not for justice but for their own motives.

Universal sinfulness: Jesus's words are a profound reminder that all people are sinners. He made it impossible for any of the accusers to pass judgment on the woman, because to do so would require them to ignore their own sinfulness.

Mercy over judgment: The story is a powerful lesson on grace and compassion. Jesus, the only one without sin and therefore the only one with the moral authority to condemn her, instead offered the woman mercy. He condemned her sin but forgave the sinner.

A call to repentance: While Jesus showed mercy, he did not excuse the woman's sin. His final command, "Go, and sin no more," was a clear call for her to repent and change her life.

and some of you consider it is not hate but a free speech seems some of the far right were considering a little too light ... remember you always find someone more on your left and someone more on your right ...

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
Kirk would be an infected toenail compared to MLK or Ghandi.....

Rotten thing to say. How would you know? How would sny of us?

Kirk was 30 years old. With his entire life ahead of him who knows what Charlie could have done. What could Charlie have raised his kids to be? What could Charlie have learned with his public engagement?

MLK and Ghandi got decades more than Kirk to mature, learn, change. Evolve.

Well, Scott I guess all of that is true but we only have a past track record to go on with every person. And Kirk's doesn't merit analogies to Ghandi or MLK. In fact, it is utterly ridiculous.

I am mystified by the deification we're seeing in regard to Kirk. He was a bomb-throwing provocateur lining his pockets while capitalizing on hate and intolerance.

Not deniable. Oh, and let me say again....that doesn't mean he deserved to get shot.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
Kirk would be an infected toenail compared to MLK or Ghandi.....

Rotten thing to say. How would you know? How would sny of us?

Kirk was 30 years old. With his entire life ahead of him who knows what Charlie could have done. What could Charlie have raised his kids to be? What could Charlie have learned with his public engagement?

MLK and Ghandi got decades more than Kirk to mature, learn, change. Evolve.

Well, Scott I guess all of that is true but we only have a past track record to go on with every person. And Kirk's doesn't merit analogies to Ghandi or MLK. In fact, it is utterly ridiculous.

I am mystified by the deification we're seeing in regard to Kirk. He was a bomb-throwing provocateur lining his pockets while capitalizing on hate and intolerance.

Not deniable. Oh, and let me say again....that doesn't mean he deserved to get shot.

nothing can be said more accuretetly ...

Ok, so either Kirk was a bomb thrower and had not been arrested yet (kind of doubt it) or you guys are deliberately using violent language which kind of is part and parcel of how we got here… all the while claiming how wrong it is to do so… well, if you have the wrong political affiliation anyhow.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Ok, so either Kirk was a bomb thrower and had not been arrested yet (kind of doubt it) or you guys are deliberately using violent language which kind of is part and parcel of how we got here… all the while claiming how wrong it is to do so… well, if you have the wrong political affiliation anyhow.

look up the attacks from trump on the left side of your political chess and tell me how it will end ...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
Kirk would be an infected toenail compared to MLK or Ghandi.....

Rotten thing to say. How would you know? How would sny of us?

Kirk was 30 years old. With his entire life ahead of him who knows what Charlie could have done. What could Charlie have raised his kids to be? What could Charlie have learned with his public engagement?

MLK and Ghandi got decades more than Kirk to mature, learn, change. Evolve.

Well, Scott I guess all of that is true but we only have a past track record to go on with every person. And Kirk's doesn't merit analogies to Ghandi or MLK. In fact, it is utterly ridiculous.

I am mystified by the deification we're seeing in regard to Kirk. He was a bomb-throwing provocateur lining his pockets while capitalizing on hate and intolerance.

Not deniable. Oh, and let me say again....that doesn't mean he deserved to get shot.

I know your not suggesting i am a part of any deification nor did I make the comparison to Ghandi and I wouldn't.

I wasn't very familiar with Kirk. My impression was that he was little more than a talking head that on the occasion I saw him I generally agreed with, no I can't think of any example particular.

Since he was a talking head I didn't really consider him any more than Limbaugh, Maddow, Stern, or Hannity. The Nazis had talking heads.
No gracias.

I can't mourn the man, he was a complete stranger to me and I can't lionize him either. Kirk was a very young man with his whole life in front of him, both professional and personal. What if Kirk could have raised his daughter to cure disease?

What if Kirk could have bettered our nation?

Kirks murder isn't the issue, the topic really is why are we doing this? Why are we shooting dozens of people from a Vegas hotel room, why are we shooting Trump? Why are we shooting Kirk and Minnesota lawmakers?

To me what Kirk might have done or raised his choke to do is a non-issue.


The issue is he was a citizen. A member of our society bound, protected by formal (laws and constitutions) and informal social contracts. The person who violated these threads by severing Kirk’s life should, and needs to suffer the repercussions of such a heinous violation judged by the law.

The man who decided he was permitted to take Kirk’s life did so without justification in violation of those formal and informal social contracts. Kirk was a man protected and held to in those conventions. A citizen permitted his voice to be shredded with, to be refuted, to find acceptance or rejection.

Killing Kirk is the same as killing any of those who wound have stood in opposition to him. The person who decided to violate those conventions in the most vile and cowardly manner is to be held account per our system of law and due process. The killer made a choice to break those formal and inform social contracts when he killed Kirk. None are protected and none are safe when such cowardly violence is permitted or excused. Kirk’s life sacrosanct by our system demands recourse anchored in the system that was broken.

There is no justification for the cowardly, unretractable violence visited upon Kirk and those who knew and loved him. Death is never in a vacuum. It leaves behind survivors scared. I can feel empathy for those who have lost, and I can feel empathy for this violence wrought. Kirk, himself, rejected that empathy was a tangible concept. That was his prerogative.

I hate to say it, from my point of view this violence is not new. It is not the phenomenons our media wishes it to be.

Jackson killing Charles Dickinson,
Burr killing Hamilton,
Representative Preston Brooks caning Sen. Charles Sumner,
John Brown,
Those killed in Bleeding Kanas,
Tulsa Race Massacre,
Jim Crow/and Black Laws,
Brandon Teena,
Melissa Hortman and her husband by a confirmed Trump supporter (who Yrump said expressing his sympathy would be a "waste of time".
Rep. Steve Scalise near fatal shooting at a softball game.

What can we do? We chose everyday individually to confine our opposition to the market place of ideas, to the ballot box, to the arena of debate. Words are more dangerous than bullets. We, individually, must make the choice each day to honor our formal and informal social contracts that permit agreement and opposition. Those who break it must be punished pursuant to law and due process.

We can speculate about the possible achievements of anyone who's been killed.

It doesn't make them a saint.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
We can speculate about the possible achievements of anyone who's been killed.

It doesn't make them a saint.

Exactly!

Just like this character can NEVER be a LEADER!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . ask gays and transgenders if he was trying to love them. The man was popular because he was controversial. He was controversial in part because he attacked certain groups and took controversial stands. You don’t want to call that hate, fine. But the same logic applies. Attack someone’s lifestyle loud enough and long enough, don’t be surprised if they push back at some point, although murder is never the answer. Louis Farrakhan says controversial things. If someone reacted to that physically would anyone be surprised? Words carry weight. Words have consequences.

I think it is worth noting, Kirk's stated views were considered controversial only by those who disagreed with him. To many, they are perfectly valid. To a large portion of the population, the idea that a man, simply by declaring himself to be a woman, should be allowed to use the girl's bathroom, is a controversial viewpoint. Yet, there are those to whom it makes sense.
Charlie Kirk is no more controversial than James Carville or Joy Behar. It just depends on your point of view. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . ask gays and transgenders if he was trying to love them. The man was popular because he was controversial. He was controversial in part because he attacked certain groups and took controversial stands. You don’t want to call that hate, fine. But the same logic applies. Attack someone’s lifestyle loud enough and long enough, don’t be surprised if they push back at some point, although murder is never the answer. Louis Farrakhan says controversial things. If someone reacted to that physically would anyone be surprised? Words carry weight. Words have consequences.

exactly.

quote:

Nope , you LIBERAL WOKE Democratic DUMB BASTARDS who post on here relentlessly and control this very tiny forum are actually providing a service to us normal participants in society.

4WD, you stated the above and you also stated the following:

“These WOKE democrats posting on here should have their identities made public.“

I trying to follow your logic. Help me out bro

If these woke Democrats are providing a service to patriots such as yourself, yet you want yourself and others to know their names. Wouldn’t an identity disclosure have a chilling effect on their providing this public service?

So what is that you want pal; A disclosure of identities or the public service to you patriots?

You seem confused.