In praise of Kirk, kinda.

[Frankeneinstein]

Please provide an example of Charlie Kirk's "hateful rhetoric".

Dude, wasn't he constantly contradicting white liberals? how much more hateful, racist and misogynistic does it get? omg

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It was Jefferson. I believe he thought is was a healthy thing for the citizenry to constantly challenge their elected officials to do the right thing.

except for today of course where he would what? regret? renounce? deny that claim? or would he lecture you on it?

The idea that social change dating back to the 60's with the mantra of peace and love is responsible for the politically motivated violence of today is, IMO, ludicrous.

Because you have a social education, politically motivated violence was the rule of the day back in the day of "love and peace" from the riots of the physical taking over of colleges to the communists taking over the top of the democratic party at the convention in 68 to Kent state where the vision of dead white kids on campus somehow transformed white liberal protesting pigmentation, it was infinitely more violent than today...they would view today as amateurish by comparison.

You've been overwhelmed by the need to finger point when there is plenty of blame to go around.

Thats been true of me ever since the 60's ...when it was plainly visible that the seeds for the destruction of this nation were obviously being sowed, I admit I was completely overwhelmed as the finger pointing is merely the necessary next step for picking up were social education left off.

 

[scruffy]

You might consider being less cryptic.

Sounds perfectly clear to me.

Leftards are LIARS. They use words like "hateful" to describe conservative families who just want to raise their kids in peace.

Scruffy pushes back. In public. Especially when some jackass tries to get sympathy from people standing in line.

 

[CowboyTed]

Humans have a murder problem, and they come in all the colors humans have. The way that Charlie was doing it was that he was not noticing that humans come in many colors, yet act the same.

Charlie was all about everyone being armed, he had a close security detail and those 'good guys with guns' didn't save him...

Charlie was killed by a guy who lived and raised in a conservative Republican house...

Message is:
Don't betray conservatives with guns

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You guys need to stop calling every opinion you don't like "hateful"

it's a cowards way out, intellectually fraudulent, and actually pretty pathetic.

.

They can't think beyond, "If you don't agree with me, you hate me and therefore must die".

Be prepared.

.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It was Jefferson.

btw, my guess would have been Jim Garrison DA of N.O. lol... [played by Kevin Costner] in the movie JFK...if that was in the movie I think/believe he [Garrison/Costner] did cite/say "A great American once said"

 

[IDIOCRACY]

Apparently you know nothing of him or what he said. He's a religious guy who was the chief strategist for Bush/Cheney in 2004.

What do I care who he's associated with. I know exactly what he said, the guy is a scumbag.

 

[berg80]

Dude, wasn't he constantly contradicting white liberals? how much more hateful, racist and misogynistic does it get? omg

The only thing out of the ordinary about Kirk being shot was the victim. If you want to do something about gun violence do something about the guns.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.

Its why Democrats had to kill him.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/09/12/erika_kirk_the_cries_of_this_widow_will_echo_around_the_world_like_a_battle_cry.html

 

[E. Pluribus]

Nothing Kirk ever said deserved a death sentence. Lacking a reasonable retort to is views frustrates the left and leads to acting out.

 

[berg80]

What do I care who he's associated with. I know exactly what he said, the guy is a scumbag.

Dowd spoke the truth.

No, Charlie Kirk was not practicing politics the right way

His assassination deserves full condemnation; his full impact should not be sidestepped.

www.motherjones.com

In promoting a story on the murder of Kirk—headlined “Charlie Kirk killing deepens America’s violent spiral”—Axios described him as a “fierce champion of the right to free expression” whose “voice was silenced by an assassin’s bullet.” New York Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein, wrote, “You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.” Klein added that he “envied” the political movement Kirk built and praised “his moxie and fearlessness.”

Here’s the problem: Kirk built that movement with falsehoods. And his advocacy was laced with racist and bigoted statements. Recognizing this does not diminish the awfulness of this act of violence. Nor does it lessen our outrage or diminish our sympathy for his family, friends, and colleagues. Yet if this is an appropriate moment to assess Kirk and issue bold statements about his participation in America’s political life, there ought to be room for a true discussion.

 

[Rawley]

You guys need to stop calling every opinion you don't like "hateful"

it's a cowards way out, intellectually fraudulent, and actually pretty pathetic.

Pointing out the fact that DEI is racial discrimination is hateful.
Pointing out the fact that boys are not girls is hateful
Pointing out that those that are in the country illegally should be deported is hateful

 

[Nostra]

The difference between the right and left.

 

[Rawley]

Dowd spoke the truth.

No, Charlie Kirk was not practicing politics the right way

His assassination deserves full condemnation; his full impact should not be sidestepped.

www.motherjones.com

In promoting a story on the murder of Kirk—headlined “Charlie Kirk killing deepens America’s violent spiral”—Axios described him as a “fierce champion of the right to free expression” whose “voice was silenced by an assassin’s bullet.” New York Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein, wrote, “You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.” Klein added that he “envied” the political movement Kirk built and praised “his moxie and fearlessness.”

Here’s the problem: Kirk built that movement with falsehoods. And his advocacy was laced with racist and bigoted statements. Recognizing this does not diminish the awfulness of this act of violence. Nor does it lessen our outrage or diminish our sympathy for his family, friends, and colleagues. Yet if this is an appropriate moment to assess Kirk and issue bold statements about his participation in America’s political life, there ought to be room for a true discussion.

LOL Says DAvid Corn, the hateful little troll

 

[Nostra]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

What were his ‘awful views” berg80

 

[Nostra]

Now I get it. My view is Kirk had the right to say ignorant, bigoted things and not be shot for it. But let's not pretend he was truthful.

Quote his bigoted things berg80

 

[Nostra]

Bring a quote, fuckface.

Not some cut and past from fake intelligence, moron.

: crickets: from berg80

 

[Hollie]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

My question being, what hateful rhetoric? Cutting and pasting slogans you heard on MSNBC is a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The only thing out of the ordinary about Kirk being shot was the victim.

certainly not the mock compassion from white liberals...to their credit they spread that around equally

If you want to do something about gun violence do something about the guns.

It would be more effective to mute the press who foment, if not outright, encourage these/the folks who commit these acts, [the guns don't do that] but I don't want to go there as all of our freedoms are precious and I certainly could/would not think myself [or anyone] a freedom loving constitutionalist who would go there...
...what did your freedom loving socially educated opinion have in mind as I am sure infringing on the rights of others couldn't possibly be it.