ChaoticMusings

Digger · Admin

RE: Charlie Kiirk Shot.

Fluffy · Getting Gobby

Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Vam wrote:
Until recently, I knew little about Charlie Kirk’s widow. Media has now brought her into the spotlight.
And I have to say, she’s an impressive presence in her own right. She’s erudite, charismatic, attractive and supremely confident. She’s too much of a bible-thumper, though, and almost certainly more extreme Right than her late husband.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see her as the obvious shoo-in to replace Charlie as head of Turning Point USA.

-- Edited by Vam on Friday 12th of September 2025 09:55:19 AM
I do feel terribly sorry for her. What happened to her husband should not have happened to anyone, regardless of their views.
Kirk was open about believing white people were superior, they were his beliefs and he cited them often on his show. He also stated that those who passed due to gun crime was not a good enough reason to alter gun laws. Sadly the gun laws were made less restrictive only months before his death.
I can understand why people would take great offence to his beliefs regarding race and I certainly do. But there is no excuse for the plethora of tik toks celebrating his death. He leaves behind two young children and ultimately was a family man. I do fear there may be a backlash from the far right against those callously openly relishing his death and the last thing America needs is more violence and hostility.
He never said white people are superior..

Now you're just lying.

I loathe liars..

Yeah, so do I. So stop lying, deflecting , denying the obvious and explain the below.

Kirk stated that he didn't believe those black ladies had the "brain processing power" to hold down the jobs they "took from white people". In that quote he is saying white people should have had those jobs. Why?

That is a racist statement because he is making a link between intelligence and white people. Those jobs belonged to white people Kirk stated. Because he doesn't doubt the" brain processing power" of white people.

If you note the white individuals who these jobs apparently belong to don't need to have any other merit except their race.

Ergo his statement has nothing to do with the intelligence of the individuals themselves, their lack of brain processing power lies in their ethnicity.

So Mad Dog, do tell why he thinks black women do not have the brain processing power of white people if he doesn't think they are superior ( ANY white people, who hold no other merit at all, no intellectual qualifications, just the trait of being white remember)? He said black people need the help of positive discrimination to get the jobs of white people because they don't have the "BRAIN PROCESING POWER" to get them on their own merit. He didn't say they took the jobs of people of any other ethnicity either, just the jobs of white people.

Digger · Admin

Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Vam wrote:
Until recently, I knew little about Charlie Kirk’s widow. Media has now brought her into the spotlight.
And I have to say, she’s an impressive presence in her own right. She’s erudite, charismatic, attractive and supremely confident. She’s too much of a bible-thumper, though, and almost certainly more extreme Right than her late husband.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see her as the obvious shoo-in to replace Charlie as head of Turning Point USA.

-- Edited by Vam on Friday 12th of September 2025 09:55:19 AM
I do feel terribly sorry for her. What happened to her husband should not have happened to anyone, regardless of their views.
Kirk was open about believing white people were superior, they were his beliefs and he cited them often on his show. He also stated that those who passed due to gun crime was not a good enough reason to alter gun laws. Sadly the gun laws were made less restrictive only months before his death.
I can understand why people would take great offence to his beliefs regarding race and I certainly do. But there is no excuse for the plethora of tik toks celebrating his death. He leaves behind two young children and ultimately was a family man. I do fear there may be a backlash from the far right against those callously openly relishing his death and the last thing America needs is more violence and hostility.
He never said white people are superior..

Now you're just lying.

I loathe liars..
Yeah, so do I. So stop lying, deflecting , denying the obvious and explain the below.
Kirk stated that he didn't believe those black ladies had the "brain processing power" to hold down the jobs they "took from white people". In that quote he is saying white people should have had those jobs. Why?
That is a racist statement because he is making a link between intelligence and white people. Those jobs belonged to white people Kirk stated. Because he doesn't doubt the" brain processing power" of white people.
If you note the white individuals who these jobs apparently belong to don't need to have any other merit except their race.
Ergo his statement has nothing to do with the intelligence of the individuals themselves, their lack of brain processing power lies in their ethnicity.
So Mad Dog, do tell why he thinks black women do not have the brain processing power of white people if he doesn't think they are superior ( ANY white people, who hold no other merit at all, no intellectual qualifications, just the trait of being white remember)? He said black people need the help of positive discrimination to get the jobs of white people because they don't have the "BRAIN PROCESING POWER" to get them on their own merit. He didn't say they took the jobs of people of any other ethnicity either, just the jobs of white people.

Did you even watch the video I posted? It is explained on there.

Fluffy · Getting Gobby

And that's just the start of the things he said.. you said he was just a God fearing Christian family man, that was the limit of your input and I thought why is everyone leaving these horrible tik toks calling him a racist? I was furious ..until I heard the quotes from the individual himself on his flipping show! You can't say these things in 2025 (well apparently you can)

I will put a link to a video from LBC on so everyone can hear his quotes from his own mouth and they can decide if he is racist or not. (When I find it) The presenter James O Brien received critique " for misrepresentation" just for playing the man's own quotes..It was bizarre. He commented he didn't like the man's views but in no way altered them.

Charlie Kirk should never have been murdered for his bigoted rhetoric. I do think some sort of action should have been taken against him.But in Trump's America that's never going to happen. Thank fuck he couldn't spout that bigotry here without incident.

Fluffy · Getting Gobby

Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Vam wrote:
Until recently, I knew little about Charlie Kirk’s widow. Media has now brought her into the spotlight.
And I have to say, she’s an impressive presence in her own right. She’s erudite, charismatic, attractive and supremely confident. She’s too much of a bible-thumper, though, and almost certainly more extreme Right than her late husband.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see her as the obvious shoo-in to replace Charlie as head of Turning Point USA.

-- Edited by Vam on Friday 12th of September 2025 09:55:19 AM
I do feel terribly sorry for her. What happened to her husband should not have happened to anyone, regardless of their views.
Kirk was open about believing white people were superior, they were his beliefs and he cited them often on his show. He also stated that those who passed due to gun crime was not a good enough reason to alter gun laws. Sadly the gun laws were made less restrictive only months before his death.
I can understand why people would take great offence to his beliefs regarding race and I certainly do. But there is no excuse for the plethora of tik toks celebrating his death. He leaves behind two young children and ultimately was a family man. I do fear there may be a backlash from the far right against those callously openly relishing his death and the last thing America needs is more violence and hostility.
He never said white people are superior..

Now you're just lying.

I loathe liars..
Yeah, so do I. So stop lying, deflecting , denying the obvious and explain the below.
Kirk stated that he didn't believe those black ladies had the "brain processing power" to hold down the jobs they "took from white people". In that quote he is saying white people should have had those jobs. Why?
That is a racist statement because he is making a link between intelligence and white people. Those jobs belonged to white people Kirk stated. Because he doesn't doubt the" brain processing power" of white people.
If you note the white individuals who these jobs apparently belong to don't need to have any other merit except their race.
Ergo his statement has nothing to do with the intelligence of the individuals themselves, their lack of brain processing power lies in their ethnicity.
So Mad Dog, do tell why he thinks black women do not have the brain processing power of white people if he doesn't think they are superior ( ANY white people, who hold no other merit at all, no intellectual qualifications, just the trait of being white remember)? He said black people need the help of positive discrimination to get the jobs of white people because they don't have the "BRAIN PROCESING POWER" to get them on their own merit. He didn't say they took the jobs of people of any other ethnicity either, just the jobs of white people.

Did you even watch the video I posted? It is explained on there.

Digs, that is not the extent of what he said. He didn't trust ANY black pilots either, the link for that is on here . The white people These aforementioned black ladies stole jobs from had no other merit except being white, they didn't need to have any other merit or qualifications except their skin colour. It would have been different if he had said positive discrimination was taking jobs from people of other ethnicities, but no it's just white people.

There is far more than that quote alone, I wouldn't base my opinion of someone on just one bigoted opion. But he has many, including saying women should submit to their husbands because they are not in charge, if a lady is r*ped she should be denied an abortion etc.

The problem with Maddog is he rarely texplains, just evades and calls names. I want him to offer a reasoned rational argument of his own. It may not happen but one lives in hope.

We are both up far too late Digs! Goodnight

Maddog · Go Outside

Vam wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Not that your words matter, but do you think they are unifying?

I'd say you're basically just Blue MAGA..
You’re right. In the grand scheme of things, my words don’t matter. But I’m curious to know who it is I’m supposed to be ‘unifying’ in this context, given that I’m not American and I live in Europe.
Let’s not even bother getting into that bizarre BIB - you’re too much of an energy leech to discuss anything with. But I’m happy for you to think you’re always right about everything. Why change the habit of a lifetime?

You're not supposed to be unifying anyone I guess, you can't. But you're simply part of an ideology/universe that isn't part of the solution. A constant drone of the same unhelpful rhetoric

I guess I'm "draining" when I expect people to stop incessantly talking about people instead of actions or ideas

-- Edited by Maddog on Saturday 13th of September 2025 03:22:09 AM

Maddog · Go Outside

Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Vam wrote:
Until recently, I knew little about Charlie Kirk’s widow. Media has now brought her into the spotlight.
And I have to say, she’s an impressive presence in her own right. She’s erudite, charismatic, attractive and supremely confident. She’s too much of a bible-thumper, though, and almost certainly more extreme Right than her late husband.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see her as the obvious shoo-in to replace Charlie as head of Turning Point USA.

-- Edited by Vam on Friday 12th of September 2025 09:55:19 AM
I do feel terribly sorry for her. What happened to her husband should not have happened to anyone, regardless of their views.
Kirk was open about believing white people were superior, they were his beliefs and he cited them often on his show. He also stated that those who passed due to gun crime was not a good enough reason to alter gun laws. Sadly the gun laws were made less restrictive only months before his death.
I can understand why people would take great offence to his beliefs regarding race and I certainly do. But there is no excuse for the plethora of tik toks celebrating his death. He leaves behind two young children and ultimately was a family man. I do fear there may be a backlash from the far right against those callously openly relishing his death and the last thing America needs is more violence and hostility.
He never said white people are superior..

Now you're just lying.

I loathe liars..
Yeah, so do I. So stop lying, deflecting , denying the obvious and explain the below.
Kirk stated that he didn't believe those black ladies had the "brain processing power" to hold down the jobs they "took from white people". In that quote he is saying white people should have had those jobs. Why?
That is a racist statement because he is making a link between intelligence and white people. Those jobs belonged to white people Kirk stated. Because he doesn't doubt the" brain processing power" of white people.
If you note the white individuals who these jobs apparently belong to don't need to have any other merit except their race.
Ergo his statement has nothing to do with the intelligence of the individuals themselves, their lack of brain processing power lies in their ethnicity.
So Mad Dog, do tell why he thinks black women do not have the brain processing power of white people if he doesn't think they are superior ( ANY white people, who hold no other merit at all, no intellectual qualifications, just the trait of being white remember)? He said black people need the help of positive discrimination to get the jobs of white people because they don't have the "BRAIN PROCESING POWER" to get them on their own merit. He didn't say they took the jobs of people of any other ethnicity either, just the jobs of white people.

He never said what you said he said.

Maybe someone else can get through to you

I cant..

Maddog · Go Outside

Fluffy wrote:
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Vam wrote:
Until recently, I knew little about Charlie Kirk’s widow. Media has now brought her into the spotlight.
And I have to say, she’s an impressive presence in her own right. She’s erudite, charismatic, attractive and supremely confident. She’s too much of a bible-thumper, though, and almost certainly more extreme Right than her late husband.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see her as the obvious shoo-in to replace Charlie as head of Turning Point USA.

-- Edited by Vam on Friday 12th of September 2025 09:55:19 AM
I do feel terribly sorry for her. What happened to her husband should not have happened to anyone, regardless of their views.
Kirk was open about believing white people were superior, they were his beliefs and he cited them often on his show. He also stated that those who passed due to gun crime was not a good enough reason to alter gun laws. Sadly the gun laws were made less restrictive only months before his death.
I can understand why people would take great offence to his beliefs regarding race and I certainly do. But there is no excuse for the plethora of tik toks celebrating his death. He leaves behind two young children and ultimately was a family man. I do fear there may be a backlash from the far right against those callously openly relishing his death and the last thing America needs is more violence and hostility.
He never said white people are superior..

Now you're just lying.

I loathe liars..
Yeah, so do I. So stop lying, deflecting , denying the obvious and explain the below.
Kirk stated that he didn't believe those black ladies had the "brain processing power" to hold down the jobs they "took from white people". In that quote he is saying white people should have had those jobs. Why?
That is a racist statement because he is making a link between intelligence and white people. Those jobs belonged to white people Kirk stated. Because he doesn't doubt the" brain processing power" of white people.
If you note the white individuals who these jobs apparently belong to don't need to have any other merit except their race.
Ergo his statement has nothing to do with the intelligence of the individuals themselves, their lack of brain processing power lies in their ethnicity.
So Mad Dog, do tell why he thinks black women do not have the brain processing power of white people if he doesn't think they are superior ( ANY white people, who hold no other merit at all, no intellectual qualifications, just the trait of being white remember)? He said black people need the help of positive discrimination to get the jobs of white people because they don't have the "BRAIN PROCESING POWER" to get them on their own merit. He didn't say they took the jobs of people of any other ethnicity either, just the jobs of white people.

Did you even watch the video I posted? It is explained on there.
Digs, that is not the extent of what he said. He didn't trust ANY black pilots either, the link for that is on here . The white people These aforementioned black ladies stole jobs from had no other merit except being white, they didn't need to have any other merit or qualifications except their skin colour. It would have been different if he had said positive discrimination was taking jobs from people of other ethnicities, but no it's just white people.
There is far more than that quote alone, I wouldn't base my opinion of someone on just one bigoted opion. But he has many, including saying women should submit to their husbands because they are not in charge, if a lady is r*ped she should be denied an abortion etc.
The problem with Maddog is he rarely texplains, just evades and calls names. I want him to offer a reasoned rational argument of his own. It may not happen but one lives in hope.
We are both up far too late Digs! Goodnight

It's amazing how you have all these quotes down to memory but put up nada when asked..

Date: Sep 13 7:49 AM, 2025

Vam wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Vam wrote:
Yeah, ok…thanks for the civics lesson…..Now, please point out where I’ve called anyone a ‘maggot’?
America is looking less like a democracy with each passing day, because trump is a democracy slayer.
I’m always bemused by a voter who sees and listens to a babbling fool like that congressman, and then decides ‘Yep! That’s the guy who’ll represent my interests best’. And that’s the point I was making.
The current US congress seems to be filled with incompetent, mediocre people, at best, and rabid, neon-god-worshipping MAGA activists, at worst.

You literally described half of the American electorate as MAGAt s which phonetically is equivalent to maggot. There is no other way of interpreting "MAGAt halfwits".
Calling large numbers of people maggots and halfwits is exactly what the NAZI's used to do: maggots and untermensch (inferior people namely halfwits). There is no difference between the thinking exposed in your writing which is characteristic of today’s h western progressives and the NAZIs of the 1930s early 1940s. There is one group that are the democracy slayers and it is the "progressives". What else would they call themselves? George Orwell saw this. The Ancient Greeks saw this.
Ah, okay…so my words are Naziesque, according to you.
BIB: Yes, there is. And the fact you can’t envisage that, really isn’t my problem.

FYI: If I ignore you from now on, it‘ll be because I find your opinions too asinine to waste my time responding to you again.

FYI: I RESPONDED to YOUR Question. And it is not an opinion it is based on the FACT that you called a large number of people "MAGAt halfwits". You asked the question, I kindly responded, and rather than engage you go into DENIAL and claim I am doing you an injury "I find your opinions too asinine to waste my time responding to you again". In other words you are claiming to be the victim in this.

Making such nasty statements against a group of people, and then acting in denial and claiming victimhood when one is held to account for such statements is EXACTLY the modus operandi of our modern day Progressives. It is the reason why it is often impossible to engage civilly with them and all that can be done is to hold them to account as best one can when the matter arises.

Furthermore I am happy to continue to engage with you answering any other questions you might have and as an anon you won't know for certain if I do because I don't have any bad feeling towards you. I see you as an example of an ordinary person that gets radicalised on certain subjects based on what media they have been exposed to and certain psychological proclivities.

Date: Sep 13 8:14 AM, 2025

If people talk a lot one can often trawl through what was said and find a phrase or a sentence that does qualify as a POSSIBLE racist phrase or a POSSIBLE racist sentence even though the person in question is clearly not a racist given all the other stuff they might have said.

This is often what major media organisations do to target a person that they want to be removed from politics, from being an influencer, from being a Presidential candidate et cetera. It is inciting ill-feeling, doubt and even hatred against that particular person among their viewers / readers. It is a form of character assassination which might incite people to actually assassinate the individual.

Sometimes what appears to be a racist phrase or a racist sentence is not a racist phrase or sentence given the CONTEXT under which the phrase or sentence was spoken.

When one ANALYSES a claim of racism this is the process that SHOULD be followed:

a) A full transcript of what was said.

b) Determining the context under which it was said.

c) Talking to the person in question to ask them what they meant by certain statements.

d) Analysis

e) Preliminary conclusions.

f) Consultation with relevant parties on those preliminary conclusions

g) Final conclusions

h) Publication of the report.

However most of the time this doesn't happen.

Vam · 1000 Posts!?

Maddog wrote:
Vam wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Not that your words matter, but do you think they are unifying?

I'd say you're basically just Blue MAGA..
You’re right. In the grand scheme of things, my words don’t matter. But I’m curious to know who it is I’m supposed to be ‘unifying’ in this context, given that I’m not American and I live in Europe.
Let’s not even bother getting into that bizarre BIB - you’re too much of an energy leech to discuss anything with. But I’m happy for you to think you’re always right about everything. Why change the habit of a lifetime?
You're not supposed to be unifying anyone I guess, you can't. But you're simply part of an ideology/universe that isn't part of the solution. A constant drone of the same unhelpful rhetoric

I guess I'm "draining" when I expect people to stop incessantly talking about people instead of actions or ideas

-- Edited by Maddog on Saturday 13th of September 2025 03:22:09 AM

How helpful is this rhetoric?

https://x.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1966735871266197618?s=61

Barksdale · Getting Gobby

So it looks like the suspected shooter is an intelligent young, white man from a religious, conservative family who was heavily involved in online culture.

As I mentioned it before it looked like a case of online radicalisation which is found on all sides of the political spectrum. Maybe people can calm down now with the civil war talk. It's staggering the amount of tweets I have seen by people who say they have been radicalised against people on the left when it appears radicalisation is the source of the problem in the first place. This obviously wasn't helped by the idiot man-child President.

It appears the shooter's father tipped off the authorities and kept him at home until they could arrive. I don't know how I would feel being his Dad given it looks like Utah are going to seek the death penalty. This whole thing is a tragedy.

Barksdale · Getting Gobby

Article containing a list of Charlie Kirk quotes:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

I don't know the full context of the quotes as I haven't seen much stuff featuring him. Personally from what I saw I found him to be a weak debater resorting to rhetorical flourishes rather than good arguments but that's just me.

Should he have been killed for his words? Of course not. However, I can fully understand why people from certain communities do not want to show him the courtesy in death which he didn't show them in life.

Date: Sep 13 9:48 AM, 2025

Maddog wrote:

He never said what you said he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think irrespective of what exact words he may or may not have used, he has a history of publicly maligning black people... this of course is intended to stir up division, and it has.
Set this in a nation of crazies where there's easy access to drugs and firearms and nobody should be surprised when something like this happens.
No doubt he'll be viewed by many as a hero and martyr to his and Trump's MAGA cause, but at the end of the day his caustic ideology triggered his own downfall.

Vam · 1000 Posts!?

Maddog wrote:
Vam wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Not that your words matter, but do you think they are unifying?

I'd say you're basically just Blue MAGA..
You’re right. In the grand scheme of things, my words don’t matter. But I’m curious to know who it is I’m supposed to be ‘unifying’ in this context, given that I’m not American and I live in Europe.
Let’s not even bother getting into that bizarre BIB - you’re too much of an energy leech to discuss anything with. But I’m happy for you to think you’re always right about everything. Why change the habit of a lifetime?
You're not supposed to be unifying anyone I guess, you can't. But you're simply part of an ideology/universe that isn't part of the solution. A constant drone of the same unhelpful rhetoric

I guess I'm "draining" when I expect people to stop incessantly talking about people instead of actions or ideas

-- Edited by Maddog on Saturday 13th of September 2025 03:22:09 AM

So, again, and just to be clear - as a non-American living in Europe, you’re telling me to stop my ’unhelpful’ observations about people in the news, and come up with ‘actions or ideas’ instead.

Okay, happy to help. But I’m sure even you know there really is only ONE obvious solution, to finally break this claustrophobic impasse and stop America from circling the drain, before it’s too late: Americans who love their country should rise up en masse and demand trump - the felon president - be removed from office, along with his cabal of stooges, enablers and sycophants, and especially the 6 deeply corrupt partisans presiding over the highest Court in the land.

But it’s safe to assume trump and his cabal’s choke hold on America is unlikely to loosen anytime soon, and I believe the reason for that simply boils down to this:

https://x.com/angry_staffer/status/1966201848043548741?s=61

Finally, let me turn this over to you and ask YOU, as a proud American: How helpful and proactive are you being to make a difference, other than trying to dictate the narrative among a small group of people on a UK-based forum?

Red Okktober · Getting Gobby

Barksdale wrote:

It appears the shooter's father tipped off the authorities and kept him at home until they could arrive. I don't know how I would feel being his Dad given it looks like Utah are going to seek the death penalty. This whole thing is a tragedy.

I think the father did the right thing in the circumstances. The son was easily identifiable from the pics and it probably would only have been a matter of hours before he was caught. Keeping him at home saved him from potentially being shot.

The death penalty may or may not happen, but it will take ages, buying his son more time, albeit on Death Row.

Had the son disappeared from the scene with no footage of him, and the father had grassed him up, then I think that would be more of a moral dilemma for a parent.

Compare this father to the father of the Southport killer. He knew what his son was up to, and the previous week had called all the local taxi firms to stop them picking his son up, to prevent him going on a 'high school massacre' . Why was he calling taxi firms and not the police?

Of the two fathers, I know which one did the right thing.

Digger · Admin

Red Okktober wrote:
Barksdale wrote:

It appears the shooter's father tipped off the authorities and kept him at home until they could arrive. I don't know how I would feel being his Dad given it looks like Utah are going to seek the death penalty. This whole thing is a tragedy.

I think the father did the right thing in the circumstances. The son was easily identifiable from the pics and it probably would only have been a matter of hours before he was caught. Keeping him at home saved him from potentially being shot.
The death penalty may or may not happen, but it will take ages, buying his son more time, albeit on Death Row.
Had the son disappeared from the scene with no footage of him, and the father had grassed him up, then I think that would be more of a moral dilemma for a parent.
Compare this father to the father of the Southport killer. He knew what his son was up to, and the previous week had called all the local taxi firms to stop them picking his son up, to prevent him going on a 'high school massacre' . Why was he calling taxi firms and not the police?
Of the two fathers, I know which one did the right thing.

The crime was heinous, what choice does that give someone no matter it's his child? The whole family could end up in prison if they knew and didn't hand him in. When your child becomes a monster I'm afraid it's the only decent thing to do.

Digger · Admin

Fluffy wrote:
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Vam wrote:
Until recently, I knew little about Charlie Kirk’s widow. Media has now brought her into the spotlight.
And I have to say, she’s an impressive presence in her own right. She’s erudite, charismatic, attractive and supremely confident. She’s too much of a bible-thumper, though, and almost certainly more extreme Right than her late husband.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see her as the obvious shoo-in to replace Charlie as head of Turning Point USA.

-- Edited by Vam on Friday 12th of September 2025 09:55:19 AM
I do feel terribly sorry for her. What happened to her husband should not have happened to anyone, regardless of their views.
Kirk was open about believing white people were superior, they were his beliefs and he cited them often on his show. He also stated that those who passed due to gun crime was not a good enough reason to alter gun laws. Sadly the gun laws were made less restrictive only months before his death.
I can understand why people would take great offence to his beliefs regarding race and I certainly do. But there is no excuse for the plethora of tik toks celebrating his death. He leaves behind two young children and ultimately was a family man. I do fear there may be a backlash from the far right against those callously openly relishing his death and the last thing America needs is more violence and hostility.
He never said white people are superior..

Now you're just lying.

I loathe liars..
Yeah, so do I. So stop lying, deflecting , denying the obvious and explain the below.
Kirk stated that he didn't believe those black ladies had the "brain processing power" to hold down the jobs they "took from white people". In that quote he is saying white people should have had those jobs. Why?
That is a racist statement because he is making a link between intelligence and white people. Those jobs belonged to white people Kirk stated. Because he doesn't doubt the" brain processing power" of white people.
If you note the white individuals who these jobs apparently belong to don't need to have any other merit except their race.
Ergo his statement has nothing to do with the intelligence of the individuals themselves, their lack of brain processing power lies in their ethnicity.
So Mad Dog, do tell why he thinks black women do not have the brain processing power of white people if he doesn't think they are superior ( ANY white people, who hold no other merit at all, no intellectual qualifications, just the trait of being white remember)? He said black people need the help of positive discrimination to get the jobs of white people because they don't have the "BRAIN PROCESING POWER" to get them on their own merit. He didn't say they took the jobs of people of any other ethnicity either, just the jobs of white people.

Did you even watch the video I posted? It is explained on there.
Digs, that is not the extent of what he said. He didn't trust ANY black pilots either, the link for that is on here . The white people These aforementioned black ladies stole jobs from had no other merit except being white, they didn't need to have any other merit or qualifications except their skin colour. It would have been different if he had said positive discrimination was taking jobs from people of other ethnicities, but no it's just white people.
There is far more than that quote alone, I wouldn't base my opinion of someone on just one bigoted opion. But he has many, including saying women should submit to their husbands because they are not in charge, if a lady is r*ped she should be denied an abortion etc.
The problem with Maddog is he rarely texplains, just evades and calls names. I want him to offer a reasoned rational argument of his own. It may not happen but one lives in hope.
We are both up far too late Digs! Goodnight

You clearly haven't watched it all the way through because the full account of what he said is on there, not a cut version, and those black guys can see what he's really getting at. He didn't say he didn't trust ANY black person. So if you've not watched that footage you're not really in a position to put forth a valid argument here.

He didn't say those women stole jobs, that was my mistake on my post. He was referring to the university slots being given away at that time with DEI giving precedence to black people over white and asian people. I posted the Harvard court case rulings on here. Do keep up.

Digger · Admin

Vam wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Vam wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Not that your words matter, but do you think they are unifying?

I'd say you're basically just Blue MAGA..
You’re right. In the grand scheme of things, my words don’t matter. But I’m curious to know who it is I’m supposed to be ‘unifying’ in this context, given that I’m not American and I live in Europe.
Let’s not even bother getting into that bizarre BIB - you’re too much of an energy leech to discuss anything with. But I’m happy for you to think you’re always right about everything. Why change the habit of a lifetime?
You're not supposed to be unifying anyone I guess, you can't. But you're simply part of an ideology/universe that isn't part of the solution. A constant drone of the same unhelpful rhetoric

I guess I'm "draining" when I expect people to stop incessantly talking about people instead of actions or ideas

-- Edited by Maddog on Saturday 13th of September 2025 03:22:09 AM
How helpful is this rhetoric?
https://x.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1966735871266197618?s=61

His killer has made a martyr of him. And that makes him more powerful in death than in life. Can you blame her? I'd say exactly the same in defiance of all those who celebrated his death.

Vam · 1000 Posts!?

Anonymous wrote:
Vam wrote:
Ah, okay…so my words are Naziesque, according to you.
BIB: Yes, there is. And the fact you can’t envisage that, really isn’t my problem.

FYI: If I ignore you from now on, it‘ll be because I find your opinions too asinine to waste my time responding to you again.

FYI: I RESPONDED to YOUR Question. And it is not an opinion it is based on the FACT that you called a large number of people "MAGAt halfwits". You asked the question, I kindly responded, and rather than engage you go into DENIAL and claim I am doing you an injury "I find your opinions too asinine to waste my time responding to you again". In other words you are claiming to be the victim in this.
Making such nasty statements against a group of people, and then acting in denial and claiming victimhood when one is held to account for such statements is EXACTLY the modus operandi of our modern day Progressives. It is the reason why it is often impossible to engage civilly with them and all that can be done is to hold them to account as best one can when the matter arises.
Furthermore I am happy to continue to engage with you answering any other questions you might have and as an anon you won't know for certain if I do because I don't have any bad feeling towards you. I see you as an example of an ordinary person that gets radicalised on certain subjects based on what media they have been exposed to and certain psychological proclivities.

I bear no ill will towards you, either. Why would I?

But it’s not easy to ‘engage civilly’ with a random online person who has suggested that I’m a radicalised progressive with Naziesque tendencies.

I‘m not playing the victim at all, so please feel free to continue with your fallacious ad hominems. I simply tried to tell you that my typing ‘MAGAt’ certainly does not mean I’m equating it with the word ‘maggot’.

I do however hold the view that people of learning-averse low intellect who blindly vote - even against their own self-interests - are, in my opinion, halfwits.

-- Edited by Vam on Saturday 13th of September 2025 11:25:26 AM