Charlie Kirk Memorial Garden

[hadit]

No, he didn't.

Who does open mike? Like, literally one person. It's not like "the right", the whole of them, does open mike.

And Charlie was one person who did it. Can you name one liberal who did it? That's the point.

So, he's using something and manipulating the facts to make it look like something is happening, when it's not.

Stating facts is manipulating facts? I don't know if you're aware or not, but when you want to convince someone of something, you often give them facts to consider. Maybe liberals abandoned facts, I don't know.

And the "conclusion" he's pushing the kid into, is the one he wanted to push the kid into.

That's called convincing someone of something, and the absolute best way to convince someone is to lay out facts that cause them to arrive at the conclusion you wanted them to arrive at.

Masterful, yes, but it's the art of manipulation, not of debate.

The students are free to respond with facts of their own. Apparently, there are no countering facts.

The thing with asking about whether they've had discrimination is clearly attacking liberal professors. The whole "look, I'm trying to be neutral, but really I'm not is a tactic.

So, the "logical conclusion" here is that we take one thing, professors discriminating against college students, either liberal or MAGA, and this then translates to ALL DIVISION IS LIBERAL DIVISION?

You just said in the previous paragraph that professors could be attacking people for both being liberal or MAGA. Then you act like it's just MAGA. Which is it?

You tell me, which students are more likely to get downgraded on a paper, an openly liberal student or an openly conservative student? Which are more likely to be openly political in their classes and try to intimidate students, liberal or conservative professors?

And then you go from one small thing, of the way professors treat people who somehow come out as political, somehow equates to ALL DIVISION IN THE COUNTRY.

Let's forget about racism, let's forget about conservative v. liberal, let's forget about the electoral system, let's forget about the rich people who spend money to manipulate. No, none of this has anything to do with division in the US, the only thing is college professors marking you down because you told them you were MAGA.

Or, the other conclusion that if college professors are marking you down because you're MAGA, every problem out there is some liberal doing something that is wrong. This one example shows that in EVERY EXAMPLE, it's a liberal doing something wrong.

I'm sorry, but that's BULLSHIT.

And you jumped from one man with an open mike to claiming victim status for all liberals. Not a strong case there.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Should President Trump divert any notional DOGE savings into a Charlie Kirk Memorial Garden ?

A spiritual place where conservatives can meet and reflect on the great mans essential teachings before going bowling or watching a monster truck display.
Trump has already floated the idea of a Heroes Garden highlighting real American heroes like Stonewall Jackson and Bedford Forest Klanboi.
Surely the way forward for this is to go all in and name the whole thing after Charlie ?
Build it in a midwest state where there isnt much to see. Have a Trump Tower hotel for folk to stay over. Families could take their kids to learn about hate and prejudice.
I think it would rival Disney. Especially among maga and crazy evangelicals which is basically the same thing.
At sunset there could be a parade of oath keepers and ICE agents before they beat up some mexicans and rape an underage girl.

Trump’s ‘Hero garden’ - with Abe Lincoln and Julia Child - is coming

^ posted while wearing the full burka!

 

[playtime]

no.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And Charlie was one person who did it. Can you name one liberal who did it? That's the point.

Stating facts is manipulating facts? I don't know if you're aware or not, but when you want to convince someone of something, you often give them facts to consider. Maybe liberals abandoned facts, I don't know.

That's called convincing someone of something, and the absolute best way to convince someone is to lay out facts that cause them to arrive at the conclusion you wanted them to arrive at.

The students are free to respond with facts of their own. Apparently, there are no countering facts.

You tell me, which students are more likely to get downgraded on a paper, an openly liberal student or an openly conservative student? Which are more likely to be openly political in their classes and try to intimidate students, liberal or conservative professors?

And you jumped from one man with an open mike to claiming victim status for all liberals. Not a strong case there.

Well, actually the "point" is that Kirk was implying that "the right is doing this". Were there right doing it? Nope. Kirk was doing it.

Was Kirk the whole of the right wing? Were his views every single right wingers's views.

Yes, stating facts can be manipulating facts. If you don't have facts in context, then you will use the facts badly.

Here is a fact that can be used badly:

"Liberals have brains" - it's a fact, however writing it with just this one fact would imply that conservatives don't.


Yes, Kirk was convincing people, by not being honest.

His logic was something like this: "You like apples, right?" "Yeah" "And apples are red, right?" "yeah" "so you like red things, right?" "er, yeah" "So, you like red meat"

Yes, the students are free to do as they wish. They're free to do tons of research beforehand. Or they might just want their two minutes of fame.

However this was Kirk's show. He was free to choose who got on. He went for college kids probably because they don't really know that much. They have ideas of what is, and what isn't, but haven't done the research and can't compete.

And he clearly controlled what was happening. Giving rules for how to be on his show.

Doesn't matter which students are more likely to get a lower grade. That topic isn't what's important here.

And I didn't claim victim status for all liberals. If that's what you read, then.... why do I bother?

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

Even now Kirk is stuck at the gates and asking to see a manager. He will not get into heaven with his record.

Are you a Christian?

 

[hadit]

Well, actually the "point" is that Kirk was implying that "the right is doing this". Were there right doing it? Nope. Kirk was doing it.

Was Kirk the whole of the right wing? Were his views every single right wingers's views.

Ah, he was "implying" it. We do see the right going onto college campuses and the leftwing professors and students behaving like someone kicked a beehive. They couldn't just refuse to hear what the speaker was saying, they insisted on trying to prevent other people from hearing them as well. This is hardly deniable.

Yes, stating facts can be manipulating facts. If you don't have facts in context, then you will use the facts badly.

Here is a fact that can be used badly:

"Liberals have brains" - it's a fact, however writing it with just this one fact would imply that conservatives don't.

Yes, Kirk was convincing people, by not being honest.

His logic was something like this: "You like apples, right?" "Yeah" "And apples are red, right?" "yeah" "so you like red things, right?" "er, yeah" "So, you like red meat"

Okay, give a concrete example of him using misleading facts and/or refusing to allow students to use countering facts.

Yes, the students are free to do as they wish. They're free to do tons of research beforehand. Or they might just want their two minutes of fame.

That's their choice. They apparently were very eager to try to counter his arguments, and by all appearances, regularly failed.

However this was Kirk's show. He was free to choose who got on. He went for college kids probably because they don't really know that much. They have ideas of what is, and what isn't, but haven't done the research and can't compete.

Interesting. See, I've seen one of the big arguments against Kirk was that he was not a college graduate, thus allowing the usual suspects to claim he wasn't very smart, yet here you are arguing that college students, steeped in the prevailing political theories, could not compete with this college dropout. College students are supposed to be taught how to think, how to view differing opinions and how to assign value to them while forming their own. Why are they unable to compete with a college dropout who gives them an open mike?

And he clearly controlled what was happening. Giving rules for how to be on his show.

I'm sure he did have rules. He insisted on civil discussion, after all, something that college students are not well known for being able to sustain. You are, of course, implying that he controlled the discourse and allowed only certain competing ideas to be given. Can you back that up, or is it something you just want to believe?

Doesn't matter which students are more likely to get a lower grade. That topic isn't what's important here.

Well, actually, it is part of it. You eagerly went down that road yourself, now you want to leave it, saying it's not important here. Just an observation.

And I didn't claim victim status for all liberals. If that's what you read, then.... why do I bother?

Nor did I claim victim status for all conservatives. We're talking about Charlie Kirk giving liberal students an open mike to say what they wanted to say, only with the proviso that he also be able to respond in like manner. This apparently has upset quite a few liberals along the way, though it is not clear why it should have. It would appear that they are only comfortable in situations where they completely control the narrative, who gets to speak, and what they say. Kirk did something different, allowing any and all who wished to speak to make their case and actually discuss things face to face. I would like to see a lefty do the same.

 

[Missourian]

Many of us are struggling to adapt to the barbarism of trump. Maybe a kirk garden would help ?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, he was "implying" it. We do see the right going onto college campuses and the leftwing professors and students behaving like someone kicked a beehive. They couldn't just refuse to hear what the speaker was saying, they insisted on trying to prevent other people from hearing them as well. This is hardly deniable.

Okay, give a concrete example of him using misleading facts and/or refusing to allow students to use countering facts.

That's not the argument I'm making.

Debating on the internet where you can look at a person's post, you can take your time to think about what has been said, where you can go off and look up facts, is totally different to being in front of a guy and it's going to end up on Youtube.

If he says something misleading, that person has to think very quickly to counter this. Kirk probably did a lot of practicing, going over all of the different arguments, and finding ways to argue back. It was his job.

But get a college kid who doesn't know very much, hasn't spent much time debating, hasn't got all of the facts, and then ask them, in a pressure environment, to respond and respond well. It's super hard.

I sometimes talk with my Mississippi colleague about politics. I have been online for more than 25 years, I go out there and look up my facts. He watches videos like Kirk, and he'll say things and I won't be counter him, because I don't have the facts.

Also, I'll say things that he can't counter, but he has strategies, I assume he learned online, for getting around them. Like when he's been proven wrong and he'll say "I'm just playing devil's advocate" instead of "okay, I agree with you".

So, I can show you example of him being misleading. I can show you example of the college kid not being able to come back at him, as I would, if I were here on my computer with time and the internet to do research.

The problem here seems to be that you want black and white. It's not black and white. This is manipulation, it's a gray color.

That's their choice. They apparently were very eager to try to counter his arguments, and by all appearances, regularly failed.

Yes, for the reasons I've written above. People want to meet the guy, speak to a famous person. Potentially some of them are plants, I don't know. It feels like there's some manipulation going on behind the scenes too.

Interesting. See, I've seen one of the big arguments against Kirk was that he was not a college graduate, thus allowing the usual suspects to claim he wasn't very smart, yet here you are arguing that college students, steeped in the prevailing political theories, could not compete with this college dropout. College students are supposed to be taught how to think, how to view differing opinions and how to assign value to them while forming their own. Why are they unable to compete with a college dropout who gives them an open mike?

Well, he got into college, which means he was academically smart enough. "Smart" means lots of things.

However a lot of not very smart people, will use the argument that "someone like Kirk didn't graduate and look, he's better than these college kids (most also probably haven't graduated) therefore I must be better than college kids."

This is a different situation.

I don't think college is designed to make kids think. It's designed to get kids to prove they can take in knowledge and turn it into a paper. It's designed so company can see who is more likely to be able to do the job they are handing out.

I'm sure he did have rules. He insisted on civil discussion, after all, something that college students are not well known for being able to sustain. You are, of course, implying that he controlled the discourse and allowed only certain competing ideas to be given. Can you back that up, or is it something you just want to believe?

Most people are incapable of having a civil discussion. Look on this forum, at least half probably end up insulting simply because they're incapable of keeping the argument going. Put people in a pressure environment and it'd get worse.

No, I can't back up that he controlled the discourse, because I don't know what rules he put in place. I'm assuming he vetted people, asked them what they were going to say beforehand.

What Kirk did worked first and foremost because it was entertainment. He had to make it entertaining. To make it entertaining you have to manipulate to a certain extent.

Nor did I claim victim status for all conservatives. We're talking about Charlie Kirk giving liberal students an open mike to say what they wanted to say, only with the proviso that he also be able to respond in like manner. This apparently has upset quite a few liberals along the way, though it is not clear why it should have. It would appear that they are only comfortable in situations where they completely control the narrative, who gets to speak, and what they say. Kirk did something different, allowing any and all who wished to speak to make their case and actually discuss things face to face. I would like to see a lefty do the same.

I don't know if people are upset about Kirk allowing people to talk or not. I am certainly not complaining. I'm analysing what he was doing. He was definitely manipulating. He was pushing a conservative viewpoint, and using this format as a way of getting that.

He was NOT trying to present an unbiased view. He would not push and pull. I've done that. I did one with a bunch of kids about chickens crossing the road. If I remember, a farmer got sued for causing a car accident because his chickens were on the road, and I pushed and pulled the kids, if they went to one side, I'd then ask them questions pulling them to the other point of view.

No, if a college student presented an argument and accepted something Kirk had said that was only a part of the story, Kirk would leave that as a win.

Kirk did something different, and he manipulated it. You have to be super confident, super quick to be able to do this. And then to push your own point the whole time, takes a guy who is interested in one thing, and it's not teaching people to think. He was teaching them to accept his views.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, he was "implying" it. We do see the right going onto college campuses and the leftwing professors and students behaving like someone kicked a beehive. They couldn't just refuse to hear what the speaker was saying, they insisted on trying to prevent other people from hearing them as well. This is hardly deniable.

Okay, give a concrete example of him using misleading facts and/or refusing to allow students to use countering facts.

That's their choice. They apparently were very eager to try to counter his arguments, and by all appearances, regularly failed.

Interesting. See, I've seen one of the big arguments against Kirk was that he was not a college graduate, thus allowing the usual suspects to claim he wasn't very smart, yet here you are arguing that college students, steeped in the prevailing political theories, could not compete with this college dropout. College students are supposed to be taught how to think, how to view differing opinions and how to assign value to them while forming their own. Why are they unable to compete with a college dropout who gives them an open mike?

I'm sure he did have rules. He insisted on civil discussion, after all, something that college students are not well known for being able to sustain. You are, of course, implying that he controlled the discourse and allowed only certain competing ideas to be given. Can you back that up, or is it something you just want to believe?

Well, actually, it is part of it. You eagerly went down that road yourself, now you want to leave it, saying it's not important here. Just an observation.

Nor did I claim victim status for all conservatives. We're talking about Charlie Kirk giving liberal students an open mike to say what they wanted to say, only with the proviso that he also be able to respond in like manner. This apparently has upset quite a few liberals along the way, though it is not clear why it should have. It would appear that they are only comfortable in situations where they completely control the narrative, who gets to speak, and what they say. Kirk did something different, allowing any and all who wished to speak to make their case and actually discuss things face to face. I would like to see a lefty do the same.

I came across this video just now.



This guy, Ben Braver, is a teacher and is/was running for state Senate in Florida.

He kept Kirk quiet, I mean the guy talks really fast, but I get the feeling he felt he had to, otherwise Kirk might take over the conversation.

They talk about school vouchers, which is just a way of giving rich people tax money. Kirk doesn't even really try to make much of an argument. Just says "it's their money, it's a tax rebate" sort of response.

He also spent a lot of time interrupting the guy.

Right at the end, Kirk brings up a topic, out of the blue which is "What is a woman?"

Like, he struggled with this guy, so goes for something he knows is going to get him back on track, which is not talking about what this guy has mostly been talking about, which is education.

 

[Muhammed]

Should President Trump divert any notional DOGE savings into a Charlie Kirk Memorial Garden ?

A spiritual place where conservatives can meet and reflect on the great mans essential teachings before going bowling or watching a monster truck display.
Trump has already floated the idea of a Heroes Garden highlighting real American heroes like Stonewall Jackson and Bedford Forest Klanboi.
Surely the way forward for this is to go all in and name the whole thing after Charlie ?
Build it in a midwest state where there isnt much to see. Have a Trump Tower hotel for folk to stay over. Families could take their kids to learn about hate and prejudice.
I think it would rival Disney. Especially among maga and crazy evangelicals which is basically the same thing.
At sunset there could be a parade of oath keepers and ICE agents before they beat up some mexicans and rape an underage girl.

Trump’s ‘Hero garden’ - with Abe Lincoln and Julia Child - is coming

I could support Charlie Kirk memorial. But it should be in Potomac park along with the memorials for other great Republicans who were assassinated, Abraham Lincoln and MLK.

And it should have an AI powered anti-moonbat security system that can detect spray paint. Then the AI tasers vandals in the taint.

 

[Mrkelly]

Should President Trump divert any notional DOGE savings into a Charlie Kirk Memorial Garden ?

A spiritual place where conservatives can meet and reflect on the great mans essential teachings before going bowling or watching a monster truck display.
Trump has already floated the idea of a Heroes Garden highlighting real American heroes like Stonewall Jackson and Bedford Forest Klanboi.
Surely the way forward for this is to go all in and name the whole thing after Charlie ?
Build it in a midwest state where there isnt much to see. Have a Trump Tower hotel for folk to stay over. Families could take their kids to learn about hate and prejudice.
I think it would rival Disney. Especially among maga and crazy evangelicals which is basically the same thing.
At sunset there could be a parade of oath keepers and ICE agents before they beat up some mexicans and rape an underage girl.

Trump’s ‘Hero garden’ - with Abe Lincoln and Julia Child - is coming

tRump would name it “tRumps memorial to Charlie Kirk”

 

[Meathead]

Mostly they just grunt like pigs.

Sounds like you getting it. Not that I give a rat's ass, but your boyfriends should use condoms.

 

[DukeU]

Like, he struggled with this guy, so goes for something he knows is going to get him back on track, which is not talking about what this guy has mostly been talking about, which is education.

Struggled?

He exposed him with facts.

 

[bdtex]

Should President Trump divert any notional DOGE savings into a Charlie Kirk Memorial Garden ?

His primary focus now is the Epstein Ballroom.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Surprised the thread hasn't been pulled, every comment by Tommy has just been flame baiting.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

tRump would name it “tRumps memorial to Charlie Kirk”

I think its important that it reflects more upon Trump. After all he survived the bullet. Jirk gave in.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Should President Trump divert any notional DOGE savings into a Charlie Kirk Memorial Garden ?

A spiritual place where conservatives can meet and reflect on the great mans essential teachings before going bowling or watching a monster truck display.
Trump has already floated the idea of a Heroes Garden highlighting real American heroes like Stonewall Jackson and Bedford Forest Klanboi.
Surely the way forward for this is to go all in and name the whole thing after Charlie ?
Build it in a midwest state where there isnt much to see. Have a Trump Tower hotel for folk to stay over. Families could take their kids to learn about hate and prejudice.
I think it would rival Disney. Especially among maga and crazy evangelicals which is basically the same thing.
At sunset there could be a parade of oath keepers and ICE agents before they beat up some mexicans and rape an underage girl.

Trump’s ‘Hero garden’ - with Abe Lincoln and Julia Child - is coming

Tommy, your posts are starting to mock themselves

 

[OldFlame]

Should President Trump divert any notional DOGE savings into a Charlie Kirk Memorial Garden ?

A spiritual place where conservatives can meet and reflect on the great mans essential teachings before going bowling or watching a monster truck display.
Trump has already floated the idea of a Heroes Garden highlighting real American heroes like Stonewall Jackson and Bedford Forest Klanboi.
Surely the way forward for this is to go all in and name the whole thing after Charlie ?
Build it in a midwest state where there isnt much to see. Have a Trump Tower hotel for folk to stay over. Families could take their kids to learn about hate and prejudice.
I think it would rival Disney. Especially among maga and crazy evangelicals which is basically the same thing.
At sunset there could be a parade of oath keepers and ICE agents before they beat up some mexicans and rape an underage girl.

Trump’s ‘Hero garden’ - with Abe Lincoln and Julia Child - is coming

Is that you in your avatar? If so....

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Is that you in your avatar? If so....

It isnt me rreally. But I feel he reflects my character.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We are renaming one of our highways the Charlie Kirk Memorial Highwayl