| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 57:02:08 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,188 |
| D/L today: |
28 files (19,987K bytes) |
| Messages: | 179,886 |
While there's no doubt that Charlie Kirk was shot in Utah today and
wound up in critical condition, the political reporter for Deseret
News is saying that he died from his injuries, but as of right now
it isn't being reported elsewhere.
CNN is now reporting that Trump says Kirk has died.
Invalid <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
CNN is now reporting that Trump says Kirk has died.
Appears to be official: <https://apnews.com/article/charlie-kirk-conservative-activist-shot-546165a8151104e0938a5e085be1e8bd>
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
Go to Hell.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
Good Lord. What in the bleeding hell is wrong with you?
Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
Good Lord. What in the bleeding hell is wrong with you?
I'm familiar with his inflammatory statements and hideous
goals,and am concerned that those who share them may use
his death as an excuse to attack his opponents.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
Good Lord. What in the bleeding hell is wrong with you?
I'm familiar with his inflammatory statements and hideous
goals,and am concerned that those who share them may use
his death as an excuse to attack his opponents.
I repeat here the response recently offered by Mr. Baldwin.
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
. . .
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
You know who you are.
Mike Solana at Pirate Wires:
Charlie Kirk was shot and killed yesterday. I'm praying for his
family. I'm also, like many of you, furious. This follows the
assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the killing
of Blackstone executive Wesley LePatner, and two attempted
assassinations of Donald Trump, all of which were widely cheered
among left-wing psychopaths online.
In the case of Thompson, we
were made to endure weeks of healthcare discourse, not only by
otherwise "reasonable" left-wing talking heads, but sitting
politicians like AOC and Warren. Hasan Piker, who called Luigi
"based," has been characterized by the press, with glowing
editorials, as the future of the left for months.
Charlie Kirk was shot and killed yesterday. I'm praying for his
family. I'm also, like many of you, furious. This follows the
assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the
killing of Blackstone executive Wesley LePatner, and two
attempted assassinations of Donald Trump, all of which were
widely cheered among left-wing psychopaths online.
I wonder why he's unconcerned about the two political assasinations
and two attempted murders in Minnesota, within the last three
months.
In the case of Thompson, we
were made to endure weeks of healthcare discourse, not only by
otherwise "reasonable" left-wing talking heads, but sitting
politicians like AOC and Warren. Hasan Piker, who called Luigi
"based," has been characterized by the press, with glowing
editorials, as the future of the left for months.
I don't know what "based" means, and there were no "glowing
editorials" in favor of murder.
AOC saying something stupid is no more newsworthy than Trump saying
something stupid.
I'm not reading any more of this shit.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charlie Kirk was shot and killed yesterday. I'm praying for his
family. I'm also, like many of you, furious. This follows the
assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the
killing of Blackstone executive Wesley LePatner, and two
attempted assassinations of Donald Trump, all of which were
widely cheered among left-wing psychopaths online.
I wonder why he's unconcerned about the two political assasinations
and two attempted murders in Minnesota, within the last three
months.
They weren't political assassinations, is probably why. The shooter of
the two legislators was pretty obviously a lunatic. Also note that no
one cheered him on.
In the case of Thompson, we
were made to endure weeks of healthcare discourse, not only by
otherwise "reasonable" left-wing talking heads, but sitting
politicians like AOC and Warren. Hasan Piker, who called Luigi
"based," has been characterized by the press, with glowing
editorials, as the future of the left for months.
I don't know what "based" means, and there were no "glowing
editorials" in favor of murder.
The "glowing editorials" referred to the press's treatment of a man
(Piker) who had praised murder.
AOC saying something stupid is no more newsworthy than Trump saying >>something stupid.
It's not newsworthy in the "man bites dog" sense, but it's absolutely
worthy of noting and calling out.
I'm not reading any more of this shit.
Your prerogative.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 21:17:04 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws>
wrote:
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
You're like the people who get concerned when Islamic terrorists blow up a plane full of civilians because it might upset people.
Charlie Kirk was killed for saying things. He engaged people in political discourse and was killed for it. Let that sink in. This is a dark day for freedom of speech and democracty. Be more worried about that.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
. . .
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
No matter how much other people disagreed with what he said, he had a
right to speak. Assasination is the ultimate illiberal act.
This is un-American.
I wonder why he's unconcerned about the two political assasinations
and two attempted murders in Minnesota, within the last three
months.
They weren't political assassinations, is probably why. The shooter
of the two legislators was pretty obviously a lunatic. Also note
that no one cheered him on.
He had a lengthy list of politicians on his kill list, and there were
plenty of suggestions that it was in reaction to recent votes.
I don't know what your point is.
In the case of Thompson, we were made to endure weeks of
healthcare discourse, not only by otherwise "reasonable"
left-wing talking heads, but sitting politicians like AOC and
Warren. Hasan Piker, who called Luigi "based," has been
characterized by the press, with glowing editorials, as the
future of the left for months.
I don't know what "based" means, and there were no "glowing
editorials" in favor of murder.
The "glowing editorials" referred to the press's treatment of a man
(Piker) who had praised murder.
Lacking a citation, it's still bullshit. It's a straw man to rail
against unnamed enemies, not a point of debate.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I wonder why he's unconcerned about the two political assasinations
and two attempted murders in Minnesota, within the last three
months.
They weren't political assassinations, is probably why. The shooter
of the two legislators was pretty obviously a lunatic. Also note
that no one cheered him on.
He had a lengthy list of politicians on his kill list, and there were >>plenty of suggestions that it was in reaction to recent votes.
He also said Tim Walz was beaming coded messages to him or something.
I don't know what your point is.
My point is that there is a fundamental difference between a lunatic >murdering someone out of delusion and someone murdering someone to
silence his political speech. Both are bad. One is worse.
In the case of Thompson, we were made to endure weeks of
healthcare discourse, not only by otherwise "reasonable"
left-wing talking heads, but sitting politicians like AOC and
Warren. Hasan Piker, who called Luigi "based," has been
characterized by the press, with glowing editorials, as the
future of the left for months.
I don't know what "based" means, and there were no "glowing
editorials" in favor of murder.
The "glowing editorials" referred to the press's treatment of a man >>>(Piker) who had praised murder.
Lacking a citation, it's still bullshit. It's a straw man to rail
against unnamed enemies, not a point of debate.
Why do you need "a citation" when the quote is right there in front of
you?
The murders and attempted murders at the Congressional baseball game a
number of years ago weren't political assasinations. The criminal had
decided to commit a mass murder of complete strangers and happened upon
the opportunity here. That was neither political nor censorious, but I
can't just handwaive away the possibility of delusion in the desire for notoriety,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The murders and attempted murders at the Congressional baseball game a >>number of years ago weren't political assasinations. The criminal had >>decided to commit a mass murder of complete strangers and happened upon
the opportunity here. That was neither political nor censorious, but I >>can't just handwaive away the possibility of delusion in the desire for >>notoriety,
That's absurd. Hodgkinson was a left-wing activist and a Bernie Bro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_game_shooting#Perpetrator
This was definitely an act of political terrorism.
Once again, I am asking you to stop deliberately cutting out
attribution lines while retaining quotes. It is critical to provide attributions so that the reader knows who said what.
In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Once again, I am asking you to stop deliberately cutting out
attribution lines while retaining quotes. It is critical to provide >>attributions so that the reader knows who said what.
Your left-arrow key broken?
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 21:17:04 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws>
wrote:
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
You're like the people who get concerned when Islamic terrorists blow up a >> plane full of civilians because it might upset people.
Charlie Kirk was killed for saying things. He engaged people in political
discourse and was killed for it. Let that sink in. This is a dark day for
freedom of speech and democracty. Be more worried about that.
Do you not understand that the cries of blame upon and the calls for >vengeance upon those who disagreed with Mr. Kirk are part of that
darkness?
His murder was of course wrong,whatever his errors in life.
But we must not let it be used to excuse retribution in kind.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 21:22:37 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws>
wrote:
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 21:17:04 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws>
wrote:
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
You're like the people who get concerned when Islamic terrorists blow up a >>> plane full of civilians because it might upset people.
Charlie Kirk was killed for saying things. He engaged people in political >>> discourse and was killed for it. Let that sink in. This is a dark day for >>> freedom of speech and democracty. Be more worried about that.
Do you not understand that the cries of blame upon and the calls for >>vengeance upon those who disagreed with Mr. Kirk are part of that
darkness?
His murder was of course wrong,whatever his errors in life.
But we must not let it be used to excuse retribution in kind.
You said nothing when leftist politicians and officeholders incited this >violence, which they have done time and time again, going back *years*, >resulting in the killing of a rallygoer last year and many other close
calls. NOTHING, you turd. You aren't bothered by political violence per
se, and you aren't bothered by Kirk's assassination. A sizable portion of
the internet is actually celebrating it and openly wishing that there are >more victims. But when it's proposed that the evildoers behind these
crimes should have to suffer some consequences for them, suddenly you have
an opinion about political violence. You're pathetic.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 21:22:37 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws>
wrote:
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 21:17:04 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws>
wrote:
A hard man indeed to treat as worthy of mourning,
but the vengeance of his admirers may prove horrific.
Was this the Trumpocracy's "Reichstag Fire"?
You're like the people who get concerned when Islamic terrorists blow up a >>> plane full of civilians because it might upset people.
Charlie Kirk was killed for saying things. He engaged people in political >>> discourse and was killed for it. Let that sink in. This is a dark day for >>> freedom of speech and democracty. Be more worried about that.
Do you not understand that the cries of blame upon and the calls for >>vengeance upon those who disagreed with Mr. Kirk are part of that
darkness?
His murder was of course wrong,whatever his errors in life.
But we must not let it be used to excuse retribution in kind.
You said nothing when leftist politicians and officeholders incited this violence, which they have done time and time again, going back *years*, resulting in the killing of a rallygoer last year and many other close
calls. NOTHING, you turd. You aren't bothered by political violence per
se, and you aren't bothered by Kirk's assassination.
A sizable portion of the internet is actually celebrating it and openly wishing that there are more victims. But when it's proposed that the evildoers
behind these crimes should have to suffer some consequences for them,
suddenly you have
an opinion about political violence. You're pathetic.
Yesterday, Ben Bergquam, a right-wing influencer, videoed outside
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's home and told his supporters to "take action".
On 9/12/2025 3:33 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Yesterday, Ben Bergquam, a right-wing influencer, videoed outside
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's home and told his supporters to "take >>action".
<shrug> Antifa gleefully did this to Kavanaugh and others. It shouldn't
be legal to protest outside private residences, but it is. Maybe if a >Liberal gets harassed, they'll finally pass some laws against this.
A Jew being a Leftist is like a chicken supporting Colonel Sanders.
I can see the Left holding anti-Jewish rallies on the local college
campus and in the streets.
These people hate me and want me dead and the Charlie Kirk Christians do >not. It's pretty easy for me to pick a side here.
Travoltron <Travoltron@fakeemail.org> wrote:
Yesterday, Ben Bergquam, a right-wing influencer, videoed outside >>Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's home and told his supporters to "take >>action".
<shrug> Antifa gleefully did this to Kavanaugh and others. It shouldn't
be legal to protest outside private residences, but it is. Maybe if a >Liberal gets harassed, they'll finally pass some laws against this.
Again, he didn't limit "take action" to an exercise of speech or press.
He's suggesting counter-violence with a making an explicit incitement.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Travoltron <Travoltron@fakeemail.org> wrote:
Yesterday, Ben Bergquam, a right-wing influencer, videoed outside >>>>Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's home and told his supporters to "take >>>>action".
<shrug> Antifa gleefully did this to Kavanaugh and others. It shouldn't >>>be legal to protest outside private residences, but it is. Maybe if a >>>Liberal gets harassed, they'll finally pass some laws against this.
Again, he didn't limit "take action" to an exercise of speech or press. >>He's suggesting counter-violence with a making an explicit incitement.
How many businesses and government buildings have been set afire
over Kirk's murder?
I'll wait right here for your answer.
As far as "Charlie Kirk Christians", whatever you mean by that, gosh, Baptists and Evangelicals themselves may not be anti-Semitic but that
doesn't mean they accept my religion.
Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:
Again, he didn't limit "take action" to an exercise of speech or press. >>He's suggesting counter-violence with a making an explicit incitement.
How many businesses and government buildings have been set afire
over Kirk's murder?
I'll wait right here for your answer.
So people who were not him aren't committing crimes just because he
implied that they might wish to do so.
That doesn't excuse him.
He's still a bad person.
Those who insisted that their political
opponents be called out for suggesting violence should also do this guy
the ame courtesy.
And the worst thing you can say about the Charlie Kirks of the world is
that they might believe that Jews don't go to their Christian heaven? I mean, who cares. As long as they leave me alone, I don't care.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:
Again, he didn't limit "take action" to an exercise of speech or press. >>>>He's suggesting counter-violence with a making an explicit incitement.
How many businesses and government buildings have been set afire
over Kirk's murder?
I'll wait right here for your answer.
So people who were not him aren't committing crimes just because he
implied that they might wish to do so.
??
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2. . .
On 9/12/2025 6:15 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
As far as "Charlie Kirk Christians", whatever you mean by that, gosh, >>Baptists and Evangelicals themselves may not be anti-Semitic but that >>doesn't mean they accept my religion.
My mother and her side of the family are Christians. They've always
treated me as an equal and have not once discriminated against me. I
went to school in a rednecky town and they also never discriminated
against me.
You liberals support Muslims that want Jews dead. You support Communists >that also want Jews dead. That's fucking retarded. These people are just
as evil as the Nazis.
And the worst thing you can say about the Charlie Kirks of the world is
that they might believe that Jews don't go to their Christian heaven? I >mean, who cares. As long as they leave me alone, I don't care.
Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:
Again, he didn't limit "take action" to an exercise of speech or press. >>>>He's suggesting counter-violence with a making an explicit incitement.
How many businesses and government buildings have been set afire
over Kirk's murder?
I'll wait right here for your answer.
So people who were not him aren't committing crimes just because he >>implied that they might wish to do so.
??
He desired to commit mayhem against Pritzker by proxy.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:
Again, he didn't limit "take action" to an exercise of speech or press. >>>>>>He's suggesting counter-violence with a making an explicit incitement.
How many businesses and government buildings have been set afire
over Kirk's murder?
I'll wait right here for your answer.
So people who were not him aren't committing crimes just because he >>>>implied that they might wish to do so.
??
He desired to commit mayhem against Pritzker by proxy.
No, he didn't.
Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:
Again, he didn't limit "take action" to an exercise of speech or press. >>>>>>He's suggesting counter-violence with a making an explicit incitement.
How many businesses and government buildings have been set afire >>>>>over Kirk's murder?
I'll wait right here for your answer.
So people who were not him aren't committing crimes just because he >>>>implied that they might wish to do so.
??
He desired to commit mayhem against Pritzker by proxy.
No, he didn't.
It was a letter-writing campaign. How many got written?
You want to play that game? Let's.
Fri, 12 Sep 2025 22:33:35 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
You want to play that game? Let's.
Our last conversation on this topic went thusly:
Me: The trend of political violence has been the left against the right.
You: A lot of violence isn't even political at all.
Me: No kidding. I said "political violence" though.
You: All violence is political.
So no, I'm not doing this again with you.
You said nothing when leftist politicians and officeholders incited this violence, which they have done time and time again, going back *years*
A Jew being a Leftist is like a chicken supporting Colonel Sanders.
I can see the Left holding anti-Jewish rallies on the local college
campus and in the streets.
These people hate me and want me dead and the Charlie Kirk Christians do not. It's pretty easy for me to pick a side here.
Travoltron <Travoltron@fakeemail.org> wrote:
On 9/12/2025 6:15 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
As far as "Charlie Kirk Christians", whatever you mean by that, gosh, >>>Baptists and Evangelicals themselves may not be anti-Semitic but that >>>doesn't mean they accept my religion.
My mother and her side of the family are Christians. They've always >>treated me as an equal and have not once discriminated against me. I
went to school in a rednecky town and they also never discriminated >>against me.
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that Christians who truly believe
accept other religions.
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
You said nothing when leftist politicians and officeholders incited this
violence, which they have done time and time again, going back *years*,
resulting in the killing of a rallygoer last year and many other close
calls. NOTHING, you turd. You aren't bothered by political violence per
se, and you aren't bothered by Kirk's assassination.
Wrong and wrong.
I certainly do not condone the pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Travoltron <Travoltron@fakeemail.org> wrote:
On 9/12/2025 6:15 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
As far as "Charlie Kirk Christians", whatever you mean by that, gosh, >>>>Baptists and Evangelicals themselves may not be anti-Semitic but that >>>>doesn't mean they accept my religion.
My mother and her side of the family are Christians. They've always >>>treated me as an equal and have not once discriminated against me. I >>>went to school in a rednecky town and they also never discriminated >>>against me.
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that Christians who truly believe
accept other religions.
It is impossible to sincerely believe in any religion without
regarding all others as in some respect incorrect or incomplete,
as otherwise there would be no reason for one's own belief.
Fri, 12 Sep 2025 23:12:08 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
I certainly do not condone the pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists.
Because that's what matters right now. Because Trump.
Even the multicolored-haired, septum-pierced freaks and the dudes wearing blouses and makeup are going, "I can't be a part of this anymore. I'm out"
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Travoltron <Travoltron@fakeemail.org> wrote:
On 9/12/2025 6:15 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
As far as "Charlie Kirk Christians", whatever you mean by that, gosh, >>>>>Baptists and Evangelicals themselves may not be anti-Semitic but that >>>>>doesn't mean they accept my religion.
My mother and her side of the family are Christians. They've always >>>>treated me as an equal and have not once discriminated against me. I >>>>went to school in a rednecky town and they also never discriminated >>>>against me.
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that Christians who truly believe >>>accept other religions.
It is impossible to sincerely believe in any religion without
regarding all others as in some respect incorrect or incomplete,
as otherwise there would be no reason for one's own belief.
We stopped doing that, which is why we are a tiny religion. We may look
down on other religions because we are snobs, but we don't tell everyone
else that they are going to Hell if they don't worship like us. We don't
even require one to believe in God as a pre-requisite for being Jewish.
We don't tell others how to worship.
There's a bright-line distinction between being Jewish and being a
Christian (many but not all Protestants) who is required to prosyletize, spread the Good News, as a religious tenet.
Now, the Lubavitchers prosyletize, but only to other Jews they don't
think are religious enough.
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 23:12:08 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws>
wrote:
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
You said nothing when leftist politicians and officeholders incited this >>> violence, which they have done time and time again, going back *years*,
resulting in the killing of a rallygoer last year and many other close
calls. NOTHING, you turd. You aren't bothered by political violence per
se, and you aren't bothered by Kirk's assassination.
Wrong and wrong.
You can tell me that, and you can even tell yourself that, but your words
and your silence speak for themselves. You're never reluctant to express
your opinion about anything. When I took my cat to the vet to relieve his suffering, you expressed your disapproval of the euthanasia of terminally
ill pets. If you're bothered by not being able to get the cookies or
typing paper you want, you tell us. If you're inconvenienced by a web
site's lack of support for your favorite browser, you tell us. And you
want us--you want me, someone who's known you only for nearly thirty years--to believe that you're very bothered by all of the liberal and
leftist incitments to violence that have been voiced and acted upon,
you've just never said anything about it? I don't believe you. Heck, three days later, while calls for _more assassinations_ are still echoing all across the internet, you _still_ haven't denounced anyone or anything
except Donald Trump.
One positive thing I have seen in all of this is that the radical left
wing is bleeding support from the twenty or whatever percent of the electorate that they still control. I've seen video after video of
formerly leftist commentators saying, "What the f___ is wrong with us?"
Even the multicolored-haired, septum-pierced freaks and the dudes wearing blouses and makeup are going, "I can't be a part of this anymore. I'm out"
Oh, but not Louis Epstein. This is his latest take:
I certainly do not condone the pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists.
Because that's what matters right now. Because Trump.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Travoltron <Travoltron@fakeemail.org> wrote:
On 9/12/2025 6:15 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
As far as "Charlie Kirk Christians", whatever you mean by that, gosh, >>>>>>Baptists and Evangelicals themselves may not be anti-Semitic but that >>>>>>doesn't mean they accept my religion.
My mother and her side of the family are Christians. They've always >>>>>treated me as an equal and have not once discriminated against me. I >>>>>went to school in a rednecky town and they also never discriminated >>>>>against me.
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that Christians who truly believe >>>>accept other religions.
It is impossible to sincerely believe in any religion without
regarding all others as in some respect incorrect or incomplete,
as otherwise there would be no reason for one's own belief.
We stopped doing that, which is why we are a tiny religion. We may look >>down on other religions because we are snobs, but we don't tell everyone >>else that they are going to Hell if they don't worship like us. We don't >>even require one to believe in God as a pre-requisite for being Jewish.
We don't tell others how to worship.
This is covered by the "...or incomplete".
You see there as being a reason not to believe as the others do,
as their beliefs do not suffice for everyone.(Although if you
don't see your beliefs as divinely sanctioned it's hard to
justify holding them).
There's a bright-line distinction between being Jewish and being a >>Christian (many but not all Protestants) who is required to prosyletize, >>spread the Good News, as a religious tenet.
Now, the Lubavitchers prosyletize, but only to other Jews they don't
think are religious enough.
There is something of a spectrum between pro-intermarriage Reform types
who are happy to entertain converts and the strict Orthodox adherents of
the Talmudic tenets saying that if someone approaches a rabbi with an >interest in converting he must respond by giving reasons not to,and if
the person approaches again to respond with more such reasons.
Trump's people are calling for retaliatory violence.
Being threatened with ouster from my local Democratic committee after 38 years because of my outspoken anti-transmania positions and refusing any
sort of recantation should make clear that I am not in line with the radicals.
I hang out on social media from time to time. What I have seen over
and over and over and over in the wake of Kirk's murder is "the
left" saying "He sucked, but what happened was and is 100% wrong."
In fact, "the leftists" in the press (e.g., Ezra Klein) and in
government (e.g., Newsom, Obama, probably others I've already
forgotten) have gone completely overboard in their *praise* of that
now dead Nazi.
Klein went so far as to say "Charlie Kirk was practicing politics
the right way." I guess that means that Klein believes that stoning
people for what they do in the bedroom is a good idea. Who knows?
What I saw coming from "the right" from the *INSTANT* the Nazi was
shot was "This is war!" (Libs of TikTok) and demands that all
"Democrat-run states" be bombed by the U.S. military.
And even here in this thread, now that we know (or at least think we
know) who shot him, how he was raised and what he apparently
believed, it's little more than butthurt Nazi trash shrieking about
how it's all the fault of "the left."
In the previous article, Invalid <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
What I saw coming from "the right" from the *INSTANT* the Nazi was
shot was "This is war!" (Libs of TikTok) and demands that all
"Democrat-run states" be bombed by the U.S. military.
Did any mainstream Republican figure of note, or any Republican
office-holder say anything like that? I follow some pretty out-there
guys on the right, but I haven't seen anything within a million miles
of this statement. I suppose it's remotely possible that someone,
somewhere said something kind of like it -- but see above as to what
we've established about your own truthfulness -- but it's far from as mainstream as, say, mockery and disrespect toward Kirk's memory and
toward his widow and orphaned children is on the left.
"Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, fascist, fascist, fascist." This isn't indirect or
subtle incitement of violence against anyone who doesn't think like
you, or anyone basically to the right of Bernie Sanders. This is
*direct* incitement of violence.
Klein went so far as to say "Charlie Kirk was practicing politics
the right way." I guess that means that Klein believes that stoning
people for what they do in the bedroom is a good idea. Who knows?
Charlie Kirk stoned homosexuals? Huh? Do you have evidence of that?
Meanwhile, four days after the assassination, precisely zero
businesses or government buildings have been firebombed. Hmm.
Anyway, my curiosity about Usenet has now been satisfied. It has been a
waste of my time.
J.D. Baldwin <INVALID_SEE_SIG@example.com.invalid> wrote:
Invalid <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
What I saw coming from "the right" from the *INSTANT* the Nazi was
shot was "This is war!" (Libs of TikTok) and demands that all >>>"Democrat-run states" be bombed by the U.S. military.
Did any mainstream Republican figure of note, or any Republican >>office-holder say anything like that? I follow some pretty out-there
guys on the right, but I haven't seen anything within a million miles
of this statement. I suppose it's remotely possible that someone,
somewhere said something kind of like it -- but see above as to what
we've established about your own truthfulness -- but it's far from as >>mainstream as, say, mockery and disrespect toward Kirk's memory and
toward his widow and orphaned children is on the left.
Meanwhile, four days after the assassination, precisely zero
businesses or government buildings have been firebombed. Hmm.
Anyway, my curiosity about Usenet has now been satisfied. It has been a
waste of my time.
Charlie Kirk stoned homosexuals? Huh? Do you have evidence of that?
Kirk referred the Leviticus passage about stoning homosexuals as
"God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."
So what you're claiming is that calling someone a fascist is an
explicit call to violence,
while what Kirk said isn't.
Kirk referred the Leviticus passage about stoning homosexuals as "God's >perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."
So what you're claiming is that calling someone a fascist is an explicit
call to violence, while what Kirk said isn't.
This isn't even the lowest-hanging fruit. You've overlooked "Joe Biden
is a bumbling, dementia-filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should
honestly should be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for
his crimes against America." >(https://bsky.app/profile/matthew.flux.community/post/3lyso2pkluk2v)
Seems a fairly explicit call to kill someone over politics, though his
claque will no doubt twist themselves into knots to disagree.
Then there's [snip]
https://x.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1580241307515383808
"I can't stand the word 'empathy' actually. I think 'empathy' is a
made-up New Age term that does a lot of damage." In other words,
anyone who feels any empathy at all for Kirk or his family is
explicitly disrespecting what Kirk openly and proudly stood for. The
best way to honor his memory is to do exactly what Charlie wanted and
feel nothing whatsoever.
