Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Elixir]

Just an aside …
The first (and last) time I ever got tear gassed was ca 1965. It was a protest in Berkeley. There was no violence until it was initiated by Nixon’s thugs.
I know. I was there. I saw it.
If Swiz’s expects me to believe there was some different dynamic at work in this little recent Berkeley protest, he needs to provide evidence to that effect.
Right now the apparent fact is that it’s easy to provoke a group to violence by visiting violence upon them. It’s a time- honored and well proven tactic of Republican authoritarians.

 

[TSwizzle]

Freedom is Slavery.

For the slavers, yes.

After the American civil war, who got reparations? After the Haitian Revolution, who got reparations? Governments are always defending someone's rights and freedoms, but seldom are they defending everyone's rights and freedoms, until or unless they are obliged to.

Why do you side with violent thugs?

Where by "violent thugs", you mean {snip irrelevant screed}

Why do you side with the violent thugs outside Berkeley? Why do you hate free speech?

I've not "sided with" anyone. {snip irrelevances}

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

 

[Politesse]

Freedom is Slavery.

For the slavers, yes.

After the American civil war, who got reparations? After the Haitian Revolution, who got reparations? Governments are always defending someone's rights and freedoms, but seldom are they defending everyone's rights and freedoms, until or unless they are obliged to.

Why do you side with violent thugs?

Where by "violent thugs", you mean {snip irrelevant screed}

Why do you side with the violent thugs outside Berkeley? Why do you hate free speech?

I've not "sided with" anyone. {snip irrelevances}

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. The part you snipped is where I explained that to adults not steeped in the Foxosphere, there are mental states other than sycophancy and rage. This is difficult for you to understand, not for me to understand. I am not confused.

Also, the part where you refused point blank to condemn the transatlantic slave trade or support its violent overthrow, which makes your position as a moral authority deeply questionable in my opinion.

 

[TSwizzle]

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. {snip irrelevances)

I didn't think so actually. So why do side with these violent thugs that were attacking the TPUSA attendees and police?

The part you snipped {snip}

is irrelevant (and off topic), that is why it gets snipped.

 

[Politesse]

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. {snip irrelevances)

I didn't think so actually. So why do side with these violent thugs that were attacking the TPUSA attendees and police?

The part you snipped {snip}

is irrelevant (and off topic), that is why it gets snipped.

Not irrelevant enough for you to have posted a response to in the first place. Only irrelevant once your obvious racism was challenged, snd you were affronted enough to be offended but too committed to your position to actually deny.

And again, I have no "side" in the Berkeley situation, nor do I think it makes any sense to choose a side in a situation that doesn't really have clear cut sides unless you're a moron and think that both Turning Point and the entire city of Berkeley are internally homogenous, non-overlapping entities.

 

[TSwizzle]

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. {snip irrelevances)

I didn't think so actually. So why do side with these violent thugs that were attacking the TPUSA attendees and police?

The part you snipped {snip}

is irrelevant (and off topic), that is why it gets snipped.

{snip, usual}

And again, I have no "side" in the Berkeley situation, nor do I think it makes any sense to choose a side in a situation that doesn't really have clear cut sides unless you're a moron and think that both Turning Point and the entire city of Berkeley are internally homogenous, non-overlapping entities.

It is very clear that you are not on the side of free speech.

 

[Politesse]

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. {snip irrelevances)

I didn't think so actually. So why do side with these violent thugs that were attacking the TPUSA attendees and police?

The part you snipped {snip}

is irrelevant (and off topic), that is why it gets snipped.

{snip, usual}

And again, I have no "side" in the Berkeley situation, nor do I think it makes any sense to choose a side in a situation that doesn't really have clear cut sides unless you're a moron and think that both Turning Point and the entire city of Berkeley are internally homogenous, non-overlapping entities.

It is very clear that you are not on the side of free speech.

Then why am I patiently trying to convince you to clearly state your position on African slavery? Please, not only are you fully free to speak, I am openly encouraging you to do so.

 

[TSwizzle]

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. {snip irrelevances)

I didn't think so actually. So why do side with these violent thugs that were attacking the TPUSA attendees and police?

The part you snipped {snip}

is irrelevant (and off topic), that is why it gets snipped.

{snip, usual}

And again, I have no "side" in the Berkeley situation, nor do I think it makes any sense to choose a side in a situation that doesn't really have clear cut sides unless you're a moron and think that both Turning Point and the entire city of Berkeley are internally homogenous, non-overlapping entities.

It is very clear that you are not on the side of free speech.

Then why am I patiently trying to convince you to clearly state your position on African slavery? Please, not only are you fully free to speak, I am openly encouraging you to do so.

Not to demonstrate your love of free speech. Why do you side with the violent thugs at Berkley who attacked TPUSA attendees and police? Would you be so patient with TPUSA folks who wish to discuss things other than topics of your approval? Or would you be cheering from the sidelines as the violent thugs attack TPUSA and police.

 

[Politesse]

Not to demonstrate your love of free speech.

My love of free speech is not something I feel needs to be "demonstrated". But it is something I obviously value.

Why do you side with the violent thugs at Berkley who attacked TPUSA attendees and police?

I don't.

Would you be so patient with TPUSA folks who wish to discuss things other than topics of your approval?

What does patience have to do with it? No, I am not particularly "patient". But if you have some argument to make in favor of theocratic governance, feel free, I'll listen. Patiently or otherwise.

Or would you be cheering from the sidelines as the violent thugs attack TPUSA and police.

No, I wouldn't. And you have a bizarre imagination of what political protests look like, they aren't duels or sporting matches. What "sidelines"?

 

[TSwizzle]

Not to demonstrate your love of free speech.

My love of free speech is not something I feel needs to be "demonstrated". But it is something I obviously value.

For TPUSA it is lee obvious.

Why do you side with the violent thugs at Berkley who attacked TPUSA attendees and police?

I don't.

You don't condemn the violent thugs that attacked the TPUSA and police.

Would you be so patient with TPUSA folks who wish to discuss things other than topics of your approval?

What does patience have to do with it? No, I am not particularly "patient". But if you have some argument to make in favor of theocratic governance, feel free, I'll listen. Patiently or otherwise.

It's not about me, it's about the TPUSA event being attacked by violent thugs.

Or would you be cheering from the sidelines as the violent thugs attack TPUSA and police.

No, I wouldn't. And you have a bizarre imagination of what political protests look like, they aren't duels or sporting matches. What "sidelines"?

Imagination? I don't need to imagine what a protest looks like, I posted video of it. A figure of speech as you well know.

 

[Politesse]

For TPUSA it is lee obvious.

I've never hindered their free speech in any way.

You don't condemn the violent thugs that attacked the TPUSA and police.

Your us or them mentality leads you into some really dumb corners.

 

[TSwizzle]

For TPUSA it is lee obvious.

I've never hindered their free speech in any way.

I never said you did fella. But you are aligned with those who would. Obviously.

You don't condemn the violent thugs that attacked the TPUSA and police.

Your us or them mentality leads you into some really dumb corners.

Of course, like men can be women etc.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The real question in all of this is why the Berkeley university has a TPUSA club on its campus? If that was not the situation they would never have been able to have their big meeting in the first place, and then there would have been no protest.

 

[Politesse]

The real question in all of this is why the Berkeley campus has a TPUSA club on its campus? If that was not the situation they would never have been able to have their big meeting in the first place, and then there would have been no protest.

Because they are, in fact, the originsl home of the free speech movement in the United States, and still deeply committed to its exercise.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The real question in all of this is why the Berkeley campus has a TPUSA club on its campus? If that was not the situation they would never have been able to have their big meeting in the first place, and then there would have been no protest.

Because they are, in fact, the originsl home of the free speech movement in the United States, and still deeply committed to its exercise.

That is an obvious answer, but if their principle is free speech then why have an anti-free speech group permitted to be one of their campus clubs?
Here is quote from top of their official site:
Charlie Kirk poured his life into building a movement rooted in faith, freedom, and love of country. He believed America’s future depended on raising up a generation who would NEVER SURRENDER.
Nothing there about supporting free speech.
Also, if Berkeley supports free speech why did they call the police on the protesters?

 

[Politesse]

That is an obvious answer, but if their principle is free speech then why have an anti-free speech group permitted to be one of their campus clubs?

Especially after multiple chaotic incidents like this one, and dozens of their faculty being doxxed and targeted for abuse by the Turning Point national organization. But I know the administration of the university somewhat, and I am not surprised that they would not be willing to tamp down on any such student organization or invitation. Partly because their students are wealthy and prone to suit. Partly because their major donors are mostly "centrist" liberals especially prone to self doubt where the prosecution of conservatives is concerned. And partly because of the aforementioned calcified and falsely mythologized history of the Free Speech movement.

A similar incident occurred in 2017, when noted conservative commentator, author and (of course) pedophile Milo Yannapoulos came to campus to speak. This sparked an even more vigorous anarchist protest, verging on a riot, and more than $100,000 USD of damage to the campus. They will continue to do this, every time. It's funny, because this only applies to national politics and the university's image. When students or faculty or the city protest the university administration itself, they are enthusiastically quashed.

 

[Elixir]

You don't condemn the violent thugs that attacked the TPUSA and police.

Sez the Trumpsucker who fails to condemn traitors and murderous insurrectionists…

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not to demonstrate your love of free speech. Why do you side with the violent thugs at Berkley who attacked TPUSA attendees and police? Would you be so patient with TPUSA folks who wish to discuss things other than topics of your approval? Or would you be cheering from the sidelines as the violent thugs attack TPUSA and police.

Your expressed concern regarding violence is... inconsistent.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You don't condemn the violent thugs that attacked the TPUSA and police.

Sez the Trumpsucker who fails to condemn traitors and murderous insurrectionists…

It's probably worth it to point out that TPUSA was involved in the J6 insurrection. They promised to send 80 buses and afterward engaged in apologetics and Kirk engaged in political cover. It may be difficult to find this because Kirk deleted some of his tweets after J6. Also, TP Action an offshoot organization of TP USA formed a Students for Trump group which is alleged to have sent the buses but it was all under the direction of management, meaning the persons in charge were talking behind the scenes. When we consider dark money, we should probably also talk about dark organizations, it gets too entangled and confusing with a lot of misdirection and lack of accountability. Many of these final leaves in trees of branching organization offshoots claim to be grassroots organizations but they're actually top-down propaganda machines with top-down managed ideas and calls to action to resolve made-up problems. I followed the Heritage Foundation's similar group Heritage Action and found the same pattern. They tell you what to think and do while calling you the "grassroots."

In any case Kirk and Kirk's group were providing cover for the people and managers who got sucked up in following their call to action: J6. This goes well beyond attacking Liz Cheney or the J6 congressional committee. The propaganda included claiming it was a false flag operation with deep state and antifa:

Was Jan 6 a False Flag Operation? In-Depth with Julie Kelly

Charlie welcomes Julie Kelly to the show, author of the explosive new book, "January 6: How Democrats Are Using the Capitol Protest to Launch a Domestic War on Terror Against the Political Right." Julie has done extensive research on the mounting evidence alleging that the feds were intric

thecharliekirkshow.com

But go back for a second...it was KIRK who sent many of these people there in the first place! Here's an example:

A former firefighter charged in the Capitol riot took a bus organized by Turning Point USA to DC, filing says

TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk has since-deleted tweets that promoted buses to DC as well as free hotel rooms in the Capitol for Trump supporters.

www.businessinsider.com

The insurrectionist in question--Robert Sanford--was eventually pardoned. It's interesting how they claimed it was deep state, then antifa, then called all the people hostages and pardoned them.

More on Sanford:

According to his attorney’s sentencing memo, Sanford, the firefighter who was sentenced to 52 months in prison for throwing a fire extinguisher at police, worked with a therapist who specializes in “cult deprogramming” to confront “the facts about the ‘stolen election’ conspiracy theory among others and how psychological manipulation is used to indoctrinate the followers of a conspiracy.”

Anyway...long story short: my point is that TPUSA is a propaganda and activity organizing tool of fascism.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why, what do you and the protesters mean when you call TPUSA "fascist"? I'll bet dollars to donuts you don't mean TPUSA favors conquering and annexing foreign countries, having wages and prices set by the government, and requiring businesses to get government permission to lay off employees. To the extent you mean anything at all besides "evil" I'm guessing you mean something to do with them riding roughshod over human rights, particularly the human rights of their political opponents, and having an ideology that legitimizes those methods. Well, I think that's what TSwizzle means too. And that's what I mean too.

Is that the definition of fascism that you are using, here?

No. [/Captain Obvious]

You feel that those who are protesting Turning Point's attempt to subvert and control the university system want to conquer and annex foreign countries, have wages and prices set by the government, and require businesses to get government permission to lay off employees? I do not agree that these are anything like a consensus definition of fascism, but I'd be interested to see a conservative actually make a clear, analyzable claim for once, that you're actually willing to put your name to rather than just making vague moralistic allusions. Have you? Is that your definition of fascism, or are you just throwing out yet another <expletive deleted> tone poem in lieu of clear communication?

I note that while you can provide no evidence that the protestors support any of the above with respect to the protestors, exploiting a unique reading of federal law to pressure universities to feel that they must either fire faculty for supposed ideological impurity or lose their federal funding is Turning Point's entire mission statement. That is the "Point" that they are "Turning" around.

Why do you behave this way? You're a college professor. Why do you choose to apply a sixth-grade reading comprehension level? Why do you ask somebody what he meant when what he meant was blatantly obvious, and then instead of waiting for an answer, impute the most idiotic meaning you can imagine and spend the rest of your post taking for granted that's what the person meant? Are you deliberately strawmanning for some imagined rhetorical advantage, or do you just get so emotional when people don't cooperate with your framing that you lose the ability to think like you're over twelve? I literally told you what definition of fascism I'm using and you quoted it back to me.

That some are calling protest to fascist rhetoric fascism is Orwellian.

Male bovine excrement. It wasn’t people protesting, it was a mob of violent thugs harassing and intimidating attendees of a meeting.

Thank you for demonstrating Orwellian Speak.

Freedom is Slavery.

For the slavers, yes.

After the American civil war, who got reparations? After the Haitian Revolution, who got reparations? Governments are always defending someone's rights and freedoms, but seldom are they defending everyone's rights and freedoms, until or unless they are obliged to.

Why do you side with violent thugs?

Where by "violent thugs", you mean slaves fighting for their freedom?

No. [/Captain Obvious]

The answer is very simple. I do not believe that any human being can be owned by another, nor do I believe anyone should accept the pretense that they are anyone's property. Such a system is neither morally right nor governmentally stable.

Why do you behave this way? You're a college professor. Why do you choose to apply a sixth-grade reading comprehension level? Why do you ask somebody what he meant when what he meant was blatantly obvious, and then instead of waiting for an answer, impute the most idiotic meaning you can imagine and spend the rest of your post taking for granted that's what the person meant? Are you deliberately strawmanning for some imagined rhetorical advantage, or do you just get so emotional when people don't cooperate with your framing that you lose the ability to think like you're over twelve? TSwizzle decided not to take your attempted derail bait and instead to try to drag you kicking and screaming back to the thread topic.

Why do you side with violent thugs?

Where by "violent thugs", you mean {snip irrelevant screed}

Why do you side with the violent thugs outside Berkeley? Why do you hate free speech?

I've not "sided with" anyone. I know this is hard for the conservative brain to process, but there are emotions other than blind rage and unbounded adulation.

And I see why you might be keen to try and reframe it, but that was your answer to my question about slave rebellions, not about Berkeley, and we all know that you meant what you wrote.

Of course we all know he meant what he wrote. And all of us who process input at more than a twelve-year-old's level know he was referring to the same "mob of violent thugs harassing and intimidating attendees of a meeting" he mentioned earlier. You grossly and absurdly misrepresented his meaning and when he corrected you you tried to shove your false words into his mouth. At least the first time you had the good grace to phrase your stupid misinterpretation as a question; now you aren't even doing that -- you're just straight-up accusing him of bad faith. And you're doing it on evidence even a twelve-year-old should know better than to be impressed by. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If not, then I dare you to deny it. With words. I'll even start it for you: "I support the Black people who rose up in rebellion and slaughtered their supposed owners in St Dominique, and do not consider them criminals, because..."

Um, you know the "supposed owners" the rebels slaughtered were the entire white population of Saint Domingue, men, women and children, don't you? You know they took many of them prisoner, and then slaughtered them, don't you? You know after the initial massacres were over they announced there would be no further violence against those still alive, and when people came out of their hiding places, they were slaughtered, don't you? You're daring TSwizzle to say he doesn't consider them criminals, because...; darers go first.