Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Emily Lake]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

As a man, I'm sure it seems that way to you.

You do realize that is a misplaced modifier, don’t you?

No, I don't realize it. Gimme a grammar lesson.

 

[Emily Lake]

The tragedy, Elixir, is that you seem unwilling to make the effort to reduce hostility among citizens

“Submit and this will hurt less.”
I, and I hope more than half of the rest of voting age Americans, aren’t going for it. We’re going to fight and maybe even win the tainted spoils of conflict. But as Toni might say, we’re not going to just lay back and think about England.

Good to know you're down for a civil war, I guess.

 

[crazyfingers]

Whether it's harder or not to change a federal law or not is not the point. The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not.

No, they can't. Judges cannot make law, and the only way they can remove a law is if it's actually unconstitutional. And there's nothing in the constitution that could be used to support that view.

It will come to the supreme court and the court can change it on a whim. They can declare no constitutional right to same sex marriage. They can even rule that the federal government can outlaw it. They can even rule that no state needs to recognize another state's gay marriage. If you don't know this you know absolutely nothing.

When the supreme court struck down Roe, some justices actually said that. Learn something.

Roe never had an actual law in place, it was ONLY an interpretation.

You do understand that the Supreme Court can overturn a law? Or don't you? A law that recognizes gay marriage is easily overturned by the supreme court. All they have to say is that the federal government has no power to require other states to recognize gay marriage. Easy as pie. Your argument about a law is stupid.

 

[pood]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

As a man, I'm sure it seems that way to you.

You do realize that is a misplaced modifier, don’t you?

No, I don't realize it. Gimme a grammar lesson.

The clause “As a man,” modifies “I’m,” which means you are saying that you are a man.

Presumably you meant to say, “I’m sure it seems that way to you, because you are a man.”

 

[Emily Lake]

Of course, you have not yet explained what makes her a poor pick. Any white man who had a track record as AG and senator, among other qualifications, would have been hailed as an exemplary pick.

I would argue that any white man who had her track record of delaying the release of black prisoners beyond the end of their sentence would NOT have been hailed as an exemplary pick by democrat voters.

Sure, but those are details. The point is that the overall resume is impressive, and no one would suppose her unqualified if she were a he.

Who said she was unqualified? Derec said she wasn't a good pick, was unpopular, and had poor judgement. I say she was inconsistent, didn't present well in debate, and vacillated between abuse of power as AG and farther left than most americans want as senator.

Hell, I'm qualified to be chief actuary of Elevance, but I'd be a really horrible choice for that role.

 

[Emily Lake]

Whether it's harder or not to change a federal law or not is not the point. The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not.

No, they can't. Judges cannot make law, and the only way they can remove a law is if it's actually unconstitutional. And there's nothing in the constitution that could be used to support that view.

It will come to the supreme court and the court can change it on a whim. They can declare no constitutional right to same sex marriage. They can even rule that the federal government can outlaw it. They can even rule that no state needs to recognize another state's gay marriage. If you don't know this you know absolutely nothing.

When the supreme court struck down Roe, some justices actually said that. Learn something.

Roe never had an actual law in place, it was ONLY an interpretation.

You do understand that the Supreme Court can overturn a law? Or don't you? A law that recognizes gay marriage is easily overturned by the supreme court. All they have to say is that the federal government has no power to require other states to recognize gay marriage. Easy as pie. Your argument about a law is stupid.

SC can only overturn a law if the law in and of itself is deemed unconstitutional. They need to be able to argue that the law is in violation of the constitution. What part of the constitution do you think is violated by Respect for Marriage Act? What part of the constitution could the SC even argue is violated by it?

SC has no authority to overturn any federal or state law that is not in violation of the constitution.

 

[Emily Lake]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

As a man, I'm sure it seems that way to you.

You do realize that is a misplaced modifier, don’t you?

No, I don't realize it. Gimme a grammar lesson.

The clause “As a man,” modifies “I’m,” which means you are saying that you are a man.

Presumably you meant to say, “I’m sure it seems that way to you, because you are a man.”

Thank you.

 

[pood]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

As a man, I'm sure it seems that way to you.

You do realize that is a misplaced modifier, don’t you?

No, I don't realize it. Gimme a grammar lesson.

The clause “As a man,” modifies “I’m,” which means you are saying that you are a man.

Presumably you meant to say, “I’m sure it seems that way to you, because you are a man.”

Thank you.

You’re welcome.

 

[crazyfingers]

Whether it's harder or not to change a federal law or not is not the point. The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not.

No, they can't. Judges cannot make law, and the only way they can remove a law is if it's actually unconstitutional. And there's nothing in the constitution that could be used to support that view.

It will come to the supreme court and the court can change it on a whim. They can declare no constitutional right to same sex marriage. They can even rule that the federal government can outlaw it. They can even rule that no state needs to recognize another state's gay marriage. If you don't know this you know absolutely nothing.

When the supreme court struck down Roe, some justices actually said that. Learn something.

Roe never had an actual law in place, it was ONLY an interpretation.

You do understand that the Supreme Court can overturn a law? Or don't you? A law that recognizes gay marriage is easily overturned by the supreme court. All they have to say is that the federal government has no power to require other states to recognize gay marriage. Easy as pie. Your argument about a law is stupid.

SC can only overturn a law if the law in and of itself is deemed unconstitutional. They need to be able to argue that the law is in violation of the constitution. What part of the constitution do you think is violated by Respect for Marriage Act? What part of the constitution could the SC even argue is violated by it?

SC has no authority to overturn any federal or state law that is not in violation of the constitution.

Don't you get it? They will just say it does. The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. Not the other way around. Haven't you been paying any attention? They just said it's ok to racially profile. The radical conservatives will just say what they want and make up a reason later. Their reasoning can be completely idiotic but they will do it anyway. They don't need to prove ANYTHING these days. They have done it before.

 

[Gospel]

Martin Luther King wasn’t an elected official either. But the people who had no issues with his assassination would’ve made the same argument you just did, so by their logic, you’re right.

Perhaps; But I am ALSO right for better reasons than theirs, so your attempt to cast me as a party to their entire abhorrent philosophy is not only fallacious but insulting.

This is just the argument ad hitlerum in disguise.

Nigga please. That wasn’t my intention at all. I’m just following the logic of your own arguments. There’s no ‘perhaps’ about it. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t a public official, yet the people who despised MLK had no problem whatsoever with his assassination.

And what is an assassination? It’s not random or accidental. It’s planned and deliberate. The target is almost always a public figure, a politician, leader, activist, or other influential person.

Tyler James Robinson had no personal relationship with Charlie Kirk. The only ‘connection’ was that Kirk was a public figure whose political positions Robinson disagreed with. Anything beyond that at this point (like a possible relationship with a transgender individual (the right wing media is peddling) is pure speculation.

What I will admit I got wrong, even though I never explicitly claimed it, (because some may have taken it that way), is that there hasn’t been a formal prayer on the House floor dedicated to a specific individual killed by assassination. That said, the way the Democrats handled this gave Republicans exactly what they wanted: noise and confusion that could be spun into endless news cycles (which is what's happening right now FFS). They should have just STFU and let the Republicans cook themselves on that one. You know, the fact that they didn't give MLK (a republican) that treatment but they did it for Charlie Kirk… hmm. Sus. what has he done that is above what MLK has contributed? Lets talk about it. Like Kirk wanted.

 

[crazyfingers]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/style/scourged-back-peter-trump-censorship

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was going to suggest that, as Kirk was not an elected representative, nor an employee of the government, but was merely a private citizen with some ugly views and a podcast, it is inappropriate and bizarre for the House (or any part of the US government) to have any memorial of his death - he wasn't the only American who died that day; He wasn't even the only American shot dead that day.

My thesis was to be that the government should not be having a moment of silence for Kirk, unless they are going to have a moment of silence every time any US citizen dies.

But then I thought more carefully about the implications of such an argument; And I have completely reversed my position.

It should be mandatory for the President, as head of state, to observe a full ten seconds of silence each time any US citizen dies.

By my calculations, this would require Trump to only speak for about eight seconds per day on average, and to remain entirely silent the rest of the time.

Look, I agree that countless Americans die in tragic and often avoidable ways every day, but I think it’s a mistake to lump political assassinations into the same category. Kirk wasn’t just another homicide victim, he was targeted and killed from 150 yards away because of his political views. That makes it fundamentally different.

Imagine if I were shot for speaking up about the children killed at school that very same day, or if you were gunned down just for making this post. The point isn’t whether people liked Kirk’s opinions, it’s that assassination shuts down dialogue itself. It creates a society where expressing any opinion can carry a death sentence.

It ain't about honoring a individual’s views or the individual themselves; it’s protecting the space where all views, including the ones we personally believe have real merit, can still be expressed without fear of a bullet.

But go right on ahead and ignore this difference, to both your own and my peril. And if not ours someone else's.

Having transgender people isn't a political view. There ia no evidence the shooter was political at all. Thinking transgenders aren't mental ill people isn't being political. It is being human.

 

[Gospel]

Having transgender people isn't a political view. There is no evidence the shooter was political at all. Thinking transgenders aren't mental ill people isn't being political. It is being human.

Charlie Kirk was both a public and political figure. If he hadn’t been, do you really think Robinson would have (or even could have) chosen him as a target for the views he despised? Robinson’s parents were closer, his whole community more personal, yet he bypassed them and went after Kirk. That choice shows it wasn’t about private grievance, it was about silencing a public voice.

Some (far right media really) is trying to argue a personal angle, like a connection through transgender issues. But even there, the logic doesn’t hold. Kirk himself publicly said transgender people could still have a place in the conservative movement if they shared its values. Now, it’s true that online echo chambers spin partial narratives, Robinson may only have seen Kirk’s harshest criticisms of transgender policies while never encountering his more nuanced statements (agreeable or not). But that only reinforces the point: Robinson acted on Kirk’s public image as he perceived it, not on any personal tie. And that’s precisely what makes it an assassination. A public figure singled out because of politics.

Edit: Another important detail is that he traveled nearly/or just over 200 miles just to shoot Kirk.

 

[TSwizzle]

When you ask some people how they feel about Kirk’s murder.



That’s just the subtle folks, others don’t even try to disguise it.

 

[Elixir]

Good to know you're down for a civil war, I guess.

And you’re going to back down from it.
I do NOT expect truly massive lethal violence killing and maiming as many (percentage of population) as last time, but that’s not a critical issue because fascists will kill millions if we all back down.
That’s what they do.

 

[Shadowy Man]

When you ask some people how they feel about Kirk’s murder.



That’s just the subtle folks, others don’t even try to disguise it.

I think the saying is “I haven’t wished anyone dead, but I’ve happily read a few obituaries.”

 

[Patooka]

When you ask some people how they feel about Kirk’s murder.



That’s just the subtle folks, others don’t even try to disguise it.

I can tell you how I feel about it. Same way you and the rest of your tribe were laughing about Pelosi's husband being brutally beaten. You fucking laughed about it then.

 

[bilby]

The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not.

Judges cannot make law,

They don't need to. There is plenty of law already made, just waiting for them to interpret it in any way they like.

and the only way they can remove a law is if it's actually unconstitutional.

... and the decision on whether any law is "actually unconstitutional" is made solely and exclusively by (wait for it...) The Supreme Court

 

[Bomb#20]

according to police,

What's with the eye roll? You mean you think the police are lying and Booker was really arrested for mocking Kirk? Do you have evidence for that? If you were sensible you'd be relieved the police aren't suppressing free speech, instead of disappointed you can't club your enemies over it.

police say Booker hit the male in the head with an open hand

Poor guy. Good thing he was supporting the dead Fascist.

Yeah, it's kind of hard for the rest of us to take it seriously when for the first time in living memory leftists start giving a rat's ass about free speech.

I’ve seen PLENTY worse occur on the CU campus without either party getting arrested or expelled.

The police are more likely to make an arrest when they see somebody hit than when a random civilian sees somebody hit. Funny how that works.

Any behavior that denigrates victims of violence is reprehensible

I wonder if any TT students ever “denigrated” the Hortmans, Mr Pelosi or any of the other victims of RW violence, and got expelled or arrested for it.

"or arrested" is a red herring -- Booker wasn't arrested for denigrating anyone. As for the expulsion, Texas Tech made their "denigrates" statement to help justify the expulsion by piling on condemnations, but it's near certain Booker wouldn't have been expelled if she hadn't hit the guy.

Not that this chick didn’t deserve it, and not to say I know that slights against Dem victims of minor RW violence are routinely punished in similar manner, but it sounds like something that occurs used to occur regularly without such repercussions.

But no more; civil behavior is sure to result from this righteous enforcement action. /sarcasm

Hang on, are you suggesting what Kirk was a victim of was "minor violence"?

 

[Gospel]

When you ask some people how they feel about Kirk’s murder.



That’s just the subtle folks, others don’t even try to disguise it.

Being glad he’s not around to keep talking shit isn’t the same as celebrating his death. For many, it’s relief after years of his verbal attacks on their communities. But yes, there are people celebrating, and I guess to some, the difference in reasons don’t matter.