ChaoticMusings

Date: Sep 20 8:18 AM, 2025

RE: Charlie Kiirk Shot.

Vam · Go Outside.

Fluffy wrote:
Vam wrote:
20 pages in, and it’s good to see a general consensus that it IS possible be shocked and saddened by Charlie Kirk’s death at such a young age, while at the same time not be impressed by what he stood for.
Personally, I suspect the reality is that he didn’t really stand for anything much. He was able to identify a lucrative market of bored, disaffected, dipshit kids and - just like trump - he cynically exploited that market with toxic bullshit, lies and triggering rhetoric that was guaranteed to keep the $$$ rolling in.
I doubt he believed in half of what he used to preach or ‘debate’. Again, just like trump, he performed the politics of spectacle.
If by any chance his bible-thumping ways were heartfelt, and not performative, then that would make him a Christofascist in my opinion.
I did consider whether he wasn't just spouting controversial toxic rhetoric views just to obtain money and notoriety as he used to sing the praises of MLK then suddenly starred calling him a "terrible man". But you're right Vam, there is no way he deserved to have his life snatched away for his views , sincere or not.
There is a video in the link below of Barack Obama speaking about Trump, Kirk's untimely death and also was very diplomatic but firm.when confirming his wife does indeed have adequate "brain processing power" !
You have probably seen it but what I noted is apart from agreeing with every point he made, was how his elegant, well thought out prose and calm demeanour contrasted Trump's pathetic posturing and bluster. One is a Statesman, the other is not.
Speaking in Erie, Pennsylvania, Obama condemned political violence as “anathema to what it means to be a Democratic country,” citing the recent fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk and other incidents.
He critiqued the Trump administration and its aides, who have reportedly called political opponents “vermin” and “enemies,” warning of broader concerning trends.
Obama emphasized the right to disagree without resorting to violence, contrasting his view with figures like JD Vance, who attributed Kirk's death to “left-wing extremism.”
He concluded that extremists exist on “both sides” of the political spectrum and that a president's duty is to unite the country during periods of high tension, describing the current situation as an unprecedented “political crisis.”
Source with video -
https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/obama-charlie-kirk-murder-trump-b2828730.html

-- Edited by Fluffy on Friday 19th of September 2025 05:38:38 PM

-- Edited by Fluffy on Friday 19th of September 2025 06:00:13 PM

-- Edited by Fluffy on Friday 19th of September 2025 06:35:01 PM

Yep, I did see Obama speak, Fluffy.

trump seethes with a visceral loathing of Obama, because he knows he will never be revered to the extent Obama is.

Barack Obama is a truly masterful orator. Couple that with his natural-born, X-factor charisma, and you have the epitome of the song lyric ‘A good man is hard to find’. Especially when compared to the cabal of subliterate, moronic stooges running the USA these days.

Imv, much of the divisiveness and unrest we‘re seeing in America, is probably because the extreme MAGA Right are still deeply traumatised by the fact that they had a black President in the White House for 8 years.

Vam · Go Outside.

Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
And he spouted quite a lot of misinformation himself, dangerous when you are preaching to young minds.
What misinformation?

Opinions aren't misinformation..

When you say you want migrants to stop coming across the channel that's not misinformation. That's your opinion. When you state the costs associated with taking care of those migrants is too high, that's your opinion, not misinformation..

Calling opinion misinformation is what people do to stifle debate..
An opinion can be misinformation if it's presented or taken as fact. Among other things he has pushed the false narrative that Trump lost the 2020 election because of widespread voter fraud, which his followers took as gospel and look what that led to. In a case like that it's probably more accurate to call it disinformation rather than misinformation because it was done deliberately rather than accidentally.

I won’t link to this, because several links can easily be Googled.

Kirk’s Turning Point USA sent 6 or 7 busloads of around 350 students to the Capitol on January 6th.

Not to participate in a violent insurrection, of course! They were sent there to… ‘debate’ 🙄🙄🙄

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
And he spouted quite a lot of misinformation himself, dangerous when you are preaching to young minds.
What misinformation?

Opinions aren't misinformation..

When you say you want migrants to stop coming across the channel that's not misinformation. That's your opinion. When you state the costs associated with taking care of those migrants is too high, that's your opinion, not misinformation..

Calling opinion misinformation is what people do to stifle debate..

Lying often stifles debate too.

And as he states his opinions as if they are true facts, that could be construed as lying, especially when you are hammering your points home to young minds.

Have you seen him waffling on about abortion?

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
And he spouted quite a lot of misinformation himself, dangerous when you are preaching to young minds.
What misinformation?

Opinions aren't misinformation..

When you say you want migrants to stop coming across the channel that's not misinformation. That's your opinion. When you state the costs associated with taking care of those migrants is too high, that's your opinion, not misinformation..

Calling opinion misinformation is what people do to stifle debate..
Lying often stifles debate too.
And as he states his opinions as if they are true facts, that could be construed as lying, especially when you are hammering your points home to young minds.

Have you seen him waffling on about abortion?

I've seen him state his position which is a typical Christian position based on the Bible, which is the book Christians claim to follow..

His position is echoed from pulpits throughout the US every Sunday ..

Maddog · Go Outside

And I might add, some of his other positions are echoed every day on this forum..

Maddog · Go Outside

Vam wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
You KNOW he didn't ! I don't know why you didn't tell Avon he had missed the news about Stephen King getting his wires crossed but you have picked on the one and only inaccurate and infamous example.
LOL, yes that Stephen King story completely passed me by. MD did say however that Stephen King had got it right in his last tweet where he stated it was about cherry picking Bible quotes. Also, I generally like to check things for myself if I can so I can form my own view.
I've watched a bit of Charlie Kirk's Jubilee debate and I can see why white Christian people like him. He puts forward standard arguments which supports those viewpoints.
20 pages in, and it’s good to see a general consensus that it IS possible be shocked and saddened by Charlie Kirk’s death at such a young age, while at the same time not be impressed by what he stood for.
Personally, I suspect the reality is that he didn’t really stand for anything much. He was able to identify a lucrative market of bored, disaffected, dipshit kids and - just like trump - he cynically exploited that market with toxic bullshit, lies and triggering rhetoric that was guaranteed to keep the $$$ rolling in.
I doubt he believed in half of what he used to preach or ‘debate’. Again, just like trump, he performed the politics of spectacle.
If by any chance his bible-thumping ways were heartfelt, and not performative, then that would make him a Christofascist in my opinion.

Who is shocked or saddened?

Basically what I see is victim blaming.

Tantamount to saying "well, it's sad she was raped but we shouldn't be surprised based on what she was wearing and her well known body count'..

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
And he spouted quite a lot of misinformation himself, dangerous when you are preaching to young minds.
What misinformation?

Opinions aren't misinformation..

When you say you want migrants to stop coming across the channel that's not misinformation. That's your opinion. When you state the costs associated with taking care of those migrants is too high, that's your opinion, not misinformation..

Calling opinion misinformation is what people do to stifle debate..
Lying often stifles debate too.
And as he states his opinions as if they are true facts, that could be construed as lying, especially when you are hammering your points home to young minds.

Have you seen him waffling on about abortion?
I've seen him state his position which is a typical Christian position based on the Bible, which is the book Christians claim to follow..

His position is echoed from pulpits throughout the US every Sunday ..

And we all know how following religion to the letter turns out.

He said some quite disturbing things when trying to convince young people that abortion was always the wrong action to take.

For eg, he makes a big deal of saying caesarean section was a safer procedure than abortion, even if the woman was extremely ill....absolute rubbish.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Vam wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
You KNOW he didn't ! I don't know why you didn't tell Avon he had missed the news about Stephen King getting his wires crossed but you have picked on the one and only inaccurate and infamous example.
LOL, yes that Stephen King story completely passed me by. MD did say however that Stephen King had got it right in his last tweet where he stated it was about cherry picking Bible quotes. Also, I generally like to check things for myself if I can so I can form my own view.
I've watched a bit of Charlie Kirk's Jubilee debate and I can see why white Christian people like him. He puts forward standard arguments which supports those viewpoints.
20 pages in, and it’s good to see a general consensus that it IS possible be shocked and saddened by Charlie Kirk’s death at such a young age, while at the same time not be impressed by what he stood for.
Personally, I suspect the reality is that he didn’t really stand for anything much. He was able to identify a lucrative market of bored, disaffected, dipshit kids and - just like trump - he cynically exploited that market with toxic bullshit, lies and triggering rhetoric that was guaranteed to keep the $$$ rolling in.
I doubt he believed in half of what he used to preach or ‘debate’. Again, just like trump, he performed the politics of spectacle.
If by any chance his bible-thumping ways were heartfelt, and not performative, then that would make him a Christofascist in my opinion.
Who is shocked or saddened?

Basically what I see is victim blaming.

Tantamount to saying "well, it's sad she was raped but we shouldn't be surprised based on what she was wearing and her well known body count'..

Where has anyone said on here that anyone blamed him spreading his opinions, even his untruths, for being shot?

Vam · Go Outside.

Maddog wrote:
Vam wrote:

20 pages in, and it’s good to see a general consensus that it IS possible be shocked and saddened by Charlie Kirk’s death at such a young age, while at the same time not be impressed by what he stood for.
Personally, I suspect the reality is that he didn’t really stand for anything much. He was able to identify a lucrative market of bored, disaffected, dipshit kids and - just like trump - he cynically exploited that market with toxic bullshit, lies and triggering rhetoric that was guaranteed to keep the $$$ rolling in.
I doubt he believed in half of what he used to preach or ‘debate’. Again, just like trump, he performed the politics of spectacle.
If by any chance his bible-thumping ways were heartfelt, and not performative, then that would make him a Christofascist in my opinion.
Who is shocked or saddened?

Basically what I see is victim blaming.

Tantamount to saying "well, it's sad she was raped but we shouldn't be surprised based on what she was wearing and her well known body count'..

BIB: Me.

And what you consider to be ‘tantamount to saying’, is really only your interpretation of what is actually being said. If you’re referring to me, your perception is totally off-base.

Vam · Go Outside.

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Vam wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
You KNOW he didn't ! I don't know why you didn't tell Avon he had missed the news about Stephen King getting his wires crossed but you have picked on the one and only inaccurate and infamous example.
LOL, yes that Stephen King story completely passed me by. MD did say however that Stephen King had got it right in his last tweet where he stated it was about cherry picking Bible quotes. Also, I generally like to check things for myself if I can so I can form my own view.
I've watched a bit of Charlie Kirk's Jubilee debate and I can see why white Christian people like him. He puts forward standard arguments which supports those viewpoints.
20 pages in, and it’s good to see a general consensus that it IS possible be shocked and saddened by Charlie Kirk’s death at such a young age, while at the same time not be impressed by what he stood for.
Personally, I suspect the reality is that he didn’t really stand for anything much. He was able to identify a lucrative market of bored, disaffected, dipshit kids and - just like trump - he cynically exploited that market with toxic bullshit, lies and triggering rhetoric that was guaranteed to keep the $$$ rolling in.
I doubt he believed in half of what he used to preach or ‘debate’. Again, just like trump, he performed the politics of spectacle.
If by any chance his bible-thumping ways were heartfelt, and not performative, then that would make him a Christofascist in my opinion.
Who is shocked or saddened?

Basically what I see is victim blaming.

Tantamount to saying "well, it's sad she was raped but we shouldn't be surprised based on what she was wearing and her well known body count'..
Where has anyone said on here that anyone blamed him spreading his opinions, even his untruths, for being shot?

Good question.

I‘ll wait….

Digger · Admin

https://x.com/boot15_vu/status/1969284288546795656

it's often forgotten what the real facts are

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Vam wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
You KNOW he didn't ! I don't know why you didn't tell Avon he had missed the news about Stephen King getting his wires crossed but you have picked on the one and only inaccurate and infamous example.
LOL, yes that Stephen King story completely passed me by. MD did say however that Stephen King had got it right in his last tweet where he stated it was about cherry picking Bible quotes. Also, I generally like to check things for myself if I can so I can form my own view.
I've watched a bit of Charlie Kirk's Jubilee debate and I can see why white Christian people like him. He puts forward standard arguments which supports those viewpoints.
20 pages in, and it’s good to see a general consensus that it IS possible be shocked and saddened by Charlie Kirk’s death at such a young age, while at the same time not be impressed by what he stood for.
Personally, I suspect the reality is that he didn’t really stand for anything much. He was able to identify a lucrative market of bored, disaffected, dipshit kids and - just like trump - he cynically exploited that market with toxic bullshit, lies and triggering rhetoric that was guaranteed to keep the $$$ rolling in.
I doubt he believed in half of what he used to preach or ‘debate’. Again, just like trump, he performed the politics of spectacle.
If by any chance his bible-thumping ways were heartfelt, and not performative, then that would make him a Christofascist in my opinion.
Who is shocked or saddened?

Basically what I see is victim blaming.

Tantamount to saying "well, it's sad she was raped but we shouldn't be surprised based on what she was wearing and her well known body count'..
Where has anyone said on here that anyone blamed him spreading his opinions, even his untruths, for being shot?

We're his opinions problematic?

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Yes, for some his opinions were problematic, who has said he should be shot for them?

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Yes, for some his opinions were problematic, who has said he should be shot for them?

Do you generally drag people through the mud after they have been murdered?

Maddog · Go Outside

Digger wrote:
https://x.com/boot15_vu/status/1969284288546795656

it's often forgotten what the real facts are

That was on Bill Maher's old show, before he was canceled.

Oddly enough for stating the 911 terrorists were not cowards.

Crazy lunatics, but not cowards..

His time slot was then taken over by Jimmy Kimmel..

Funny old world..

Maddog · Go Outside

Barksdale wrote:
I've seen a clip of his shooting which autoplayed as I was scrolling on Twitter. I wish I hadn't. I think it's unlikely he survived.
Sadly things are going to get worse. Your country is extraordinarily polarised politically, economic conditions are going to get a lot tougher as the year goes on and you are led by a man who is simply incapable of unifying America.
I'm praying for you guys, and I don't even pray.

Yes, things are going to get worse. Not simply from the murder, but the callous reaction to it.

This assassination has further divided our country.

If people aren't celebrating his death, they are judging the victim after death to make him seem less valuable as a human.

More will follow with that sort of attitude..

No telling what sort of nonsense will happen at the funeral tomorrow.

I'll also be interested in who attends. Will it simply be the people that agreed with him in life?

Maddog · Go Outside

www.facebook.com/share/r/1CNvdrkCuQ/

Maybe don't "open that window"..

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Yes, for some his opinions were problematic, who has said he should be shot for them?
Do you generally drag people through the mud after they have been murdered?

It's called debate. Charlie Kirk was a great believer in that.

No one is celebrating his death here, it was a cold callous murder, but people who had never heard of him before (including me) have listened and seen loads of his stuff now, some I agree with, some I dont. I think it's natural people will give opinions on what they have seen.

-- Edited by Syl on Saturday 20th of September 2025 11:20:09 PM

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Yes, for some his opinions were problematic, who has said he should be shot for them?
Do you generally drag people through the mud after they have been murdered?
It's called debate. Charlie Kirk was a great believer in that.
No one is celebrating his death here, it was a cold callous murder, but people who had never heard of him before (including me) have listened and seen loads of his stuff now, some I agree with, some I dont. I think it's natural people will give opinions on what they have seen.

-- Edited by Syl on Saturday 20th of September 2025 11:20:09 PM

I think you just described everyone from the Pope to Princess Di..

I guess as long as your consistent it's all good..