Black Pastor Calls Out Those Speaking Against Charlie Kirk

[Moonglow]

Grow up!

Why, I see no advantage in it.

 

[buttercup]

We're only doomed if the government decides to take away our right to disagree with each other and as of September 10th of this year the left has been trying hard.

Like I've said many times, I don't believe that asinine official story at all. It's an obvious lie. But it sure created the exact reaction that it was intended to create, iyam...MORE hate, more red / blue division, more calls for the government to do something ("hate speech" legislation, "gun control" etc.)

 

[ChristisKing]

Like I've said many times, I don't believe that asinine official story at all. It's an obvious lie. But it sure created the exact reaction that it was intended to create, iyam...MORE hate, more red / blue division, more calls for the government to do something ("hate speech" legislation, "gun control" etc.)

You mean you don't believe that Charlie Kirk was actually assassinated? Also we do have to do a whole lot of gun control,..as we have to control what kind of people get the guns not take them away.

 

[buttercup]

You mean you don't believe that Charlie Kirk was actually assassinated? Also we do have to do a whole lot of gun control,..as we have to control what kind of people get the guns not take them away.

No, that's not what I said. I believe Tyler Robinson is a patsy.

 

[ChristisKing]

No, that's not what I said. I believe Tyler Robinson is a patsy.

So you don't think that he did it?

 

[buttercup]

So you don't think that he did it?

As of now, no, I don't. There are way too many problems with the story, and the story gets more ridiculous by the day. If you haven't been following all the anomalies that keep piling up, then I can understand your surprise at what I said. Anyway, once again I've spent more time here than I wanted to... so I'm going to sign off for now. Besides we've gotten off topic here.

 

[ChristisKing]

As of now, no, I don't. There are way too many problems with the story, and the story gets more ridiculous by the day. If you haven't been following all the anomalies that keep piling up, then I can understand your surprise at what I said. Anyway, once again I've spent more time here than I wanted to... so I'm going to sign off for now. Besides we've gotten off topic here.

Yeah but shockingly enough you might just possibly be right.

‘Tyler Robinson is framed…’: Candace Owens makes shocking claims about Charlie Kirk assassin

Charlie Kirk's assassination has sparked several conspiracy theories - the latest coming from commentator Candace Owens

www.hindustantimes.com

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Yeah but shockingly enough you might just possibly be right.

‘Tyler Robinson is framed…’: Candace Owens makes shocking claims about Charlie Kirk assassin

Charlie Kirk's assassination has sparked several conspiracy theories - the latest coming from commentator Candace Owens

www.hindustantimes.com

Candice Owens does the work of her father. She's looking for a following

"Owens, however, did not back her claims with evidence."

 

[ChristisKing]

Candice Owens does the work of her father

I thought that she was a hardcore MAGA Republican though. I'm pretty sure that Robinson did it but that article got me questioning it.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I thought that she was a hardcore MAGA Republican though. I'm pretty sure that Robinson did it but that article got me questioning it.

Redirect Notice

 

[Yarddog]

Do you oppose free speech?

Do you want those who criticize Kirk imprisoned or executed?

Howin the world do you get your two questions from this video??? did you bother to watch it?

 

[AZrailwhale]

So you now realize wanting the state to execute or imprison someone for making threats is dumb. Glad you realize this.

I’ve learned in my life to take threats seriously. Many might be hot air, but any might be serious.

 

[ChristisKing]

I’ve learned in my life to take threats seriously. Many might be hot air, but any might be serious.

Yeah as we don't want any other Tyler Robinsons.

 

[BothWings]

This just isn't online most of that was in the news and the FBI was already alerted by the catch fascist thing and why shouldn't a threat of urinating on somebody's grave be a lock up? It's threatening to commit vandalism.

I don't believe that threatening to do that warrants locking someone up. Maybe justifies taking their name and running their background though. However if you threaten to do bodily harm to someone that's different and I might advocate someone being locked up for a short period because of that, or at least put under surveillance.

 

[ChristisKing]

I don't believe that threatening to do that warrants locking someone up. Maybe justifies taking their name and running their background though. However if you threaten to do bodily harm to someone that's different and I might advocate someone being locked up for a short period because of that, or at least put under surveillance.

I mostly agree with you but how is threatening to do damage to private property (since that's basically what a grave is) unimportant enough to warrant a lock-up? As shouldn't that be serious too although I admit not as serious enough as threatening to harm a person, but still serious in my book and if actually done should be an automatic hate crime.

 

[BothWings]

I mostly agree with you but how is threatening to do damage to private property (since that's basically what a grave is) unimportant enough to warrant a lock-up? As shouldn't that be serious too although I admit not as serious enough as threatening to harm a person, but still serious in my book and if actually done should be an automatic hate crime.

Because I believe someone like that should have their name taken and perhaps be watched a little more carefully. That's where I draw the line with free speech. If they don't actually do anything then they shouldn't be in prison because they haven't committed a crime. They just talked about it.

 

[ChristisKing]

Because I believe someone like that should have their name taken and perhaps be watched a little more carefully. That's where I draw the line with free speech. If they don't actually do anything then they shouldn't be in prison because they haven't committed a crime. They just talked about it.

If you threaten to take a knife to someone's throat that's still a crime even if you didn't actually commit the act. If you talk sexual to a child online and say that you want to meet up for sex that's a crime whether that actually happens or not and should be hanged in my opinion for that one. I don't see why threatening to deface somebody's private property would be any different.

 

[BothWings]

If you threaten to take a knife to someone's throat that's still a crime even if you didn't actually commit the act. If you talk sexual to a child online and say that you want to meet up for sex that's a crime whether that actually happens or not and should be hanged in my opinion for that one. I don't see why threatening to deface somebody's private property would be any different.

i do.

 

[gipper]

I’ve learned in my life to take threats seriously. Many might be hot air, but any might be serious.

Of course, but we don’t want the state executing people for making threats. Or, maybe you do.

 

[gipper]

Howin the world do you get your two questions from this video??? did you bother to watch it?

Read the thread. The OP indicated he approves of executing or imprisoning people who make threats.