Of course it's a tragedy @Suitman, just don't try and make out that Ukraine didn't agitate for war years before the invasion. Zelensky provoked them for years.
Nothing racist at all. @the phantom menace has done shits that are more racist.Well the main statement was all Trump that lead to the memes etc, but let’s just post Kirk’s entire commentary on the Haitian / Springfield situation:
CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): There's some great Haitians in America. There's some — I've met them in Florida. But also, there's a fair amount of Haitians that should have been better vetted and shouldn't be here at all. The elites in this country thought they could shame the locals of Springfield, Ohio, into being quiet. They thought of all of them would be too scared of being called racist to say anything, but they were wrong. More and more people are speaking up about what has happened to their town. They're talking about how their hospitals, schools, and social services are being overwhelmed. They're talking about vagrants moving onto their lawns, and they fear all sorts of crime. And now they're talking about something even crazier.
Allegedly, Haitians are going around and taking people's pets and eating them. The duck pond in a local park is being picked clean. So, allegedly, you have Haitians in this town of Springfield, Ohio that are going by and eating ducks.
not sure about you, but I don’t consider that as racist?
Did you get all that from a movie made in 2016, when Zelensky wasn't even president....Of course it's a tragedy @Suitman, just don't try and make out that Ukraine didn't agitate for war years before the invasion. Zelensky provoked them for years.
Ukraine can spin it as wanting NATO for protection, but Russia was never going to accept NATO inching right up to its border. Ever. They’ve always demanded a buffer zone and were promised one by the US, and with the US and the West arming Kyiv, Russia saw that as a line crossed.Can you explain why? By wanting to join Nato for security?
Good on you for taking the time to explore the issues first hand.I've seen a shit load of Charlie Kirk material over the last week, but i wouldn't classify any of it as misogynistic - so i'm keen to hear what you determine that to be.
If him suggesting he believes in the "traditional" roles of a married woman in a family environment being the care-givers who raise the children and tend to the home - thats not misogynistic, it's simply a personal opinion and choice. If the cost of living wasn't so high that most families need two working adults to eat, i think its the way the majority would "preferably" live.
As for racist rhetoric - that's entirely determined by your view of what racism is. When i've heard him comment on race, its usually been fact or statistic driven and not just an off the cuff comment. He presents bluntly, no doubt, and i can entirely understand why some may take it that way - but as with most communication - intent is sometimes more important that the words themselves.
Every production on either side is f**king biased. Everyone is including members of this illustrious forum.Not exactly a non-bias production.....
What?Hey @Suitman, how about a Kirk being killed for putting shit on transgender people? Did you have a laugh at that?
Except those that get labelled a 'fence sitter' as if it means something offensive.Every production on either side is f**king biased. Everyone is including members of this illustrious forum.
Because you are laughing at my point that you asked about Russia and why they invaded. The other big news in the world is the Kirk assassination and the reasons behind it. . Have you laughed at that too? Plenty of your mates have.What?
Why would you ask me that?
Because you are laughing at my point that you asked about Russia and why they invaded. The other big news in the world is the Kirk assassination and the reasons behind it. . Have you laughed at that too? Plenty of your mates have.
Last week @Joshuatheeel argued with me ad nauseam that the gunman was a Republican.
You haven't answered my question. What do you think about the reasons why Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk? Surely you read about it.I laughed at your reply, yes. I found it callous and ill-informed.
I don't know who you think my mates are. I have my own opinions.
Oh, give it a rest with your high horse, you massive dickhead. He pretty much backpedaled and almost apologised. Maybe you’re the one who didn’t bother reading things properly.He actually didn't.
He held a wait and see approach opinion.
FFS mate, chill out or take a break, or even read people's replies properly.
Or better still, stfu.
The last para, pretty much yes. He's talking about the (alleged) actions of individuals or at worst a small small group, but classifying it primarily by race, and through careful use of language inferring that it is a whole race issue.Well the main statement was all Trump that lead to the memes etc, but let’s just post Kirk’s entire commentary on the Haitian / Springfield situation:
CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): There's some great Haitians in America. There's some — I've met them in Florida. But also, there's a fair amount of Haitians that should have been better vetted and shouldn't be here at all. The elites in this country thought they could shame the locals of Springfield, Ohio, into being quiet. They thought of all of them would be too scared of being called racist to say anything, but they were wrong. More and more people are speaking up about what has happened to their town. They're talking about how their hospitals, schools, and social services are being overwhelmed. They're talking about vagrants moving onto their lawns, and they fear all sorts of crime. And now they're talking about something even crazier.
Allegedly, Haitians are going around and taking people's pets and eating them. The duck pond in a local park is being picked clean. So, allegedly, you have Haitians in this town of Springfield, Ohio that are going by and eating ducks.
not sure about you, but I don’t consider that as racist?
You haven't answered my question. What do you think about the reasons why Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk? Surely you read about it.
Charlie Kirk’s biggest mistake was believing he could treat uncivil people with civility. In the end, that mistake cost him his life.The last para, pretty much yes. He's talking about the (alleged) actions of individuals or at worst a small small group, but classifying it primarily by race, and through careful use of language inferring that it is a whole race issue.
And in case the nuance is lost, here's the dog whistle parts of the first paragraph of Kirk's text that carefully try and legitimise generalisations and this build up to the intended impact of that last claim, just for reference:
"The elites in this country thought they could shame the locals of Springfield, Ohio, into being quiet. They thought of all of them would be too scared of being called racist to say anything, but they were wrong."
"They're talking about how their hospitals, schools, and social services are being overwhelmed."
He was a smart guy who could talk and write (mainly with opinions that he and his brothers in arms could benefit), but he always spoke and wrote with the intention of creating division - rather than creating love. Such is the conservative way...
Where did I say he was a republican? And happy to admit the initial Nick Fuentes stuff hasn't been proven, which was my whole point ....was way too early to make any claims (which others and me have told you several times), just like right now...Last week @Joshuatheeel argued with me ad nauseam that the gunman was a Republican. What is he now? Was he radicalised by the left's view on things including the whole gender, them/they horseshit? Did you go a bit too hard mate, before knowing the facts or motive?
