Kirk said Floyd was a scumbag.

[Nostra]

Floyd and Co. pressed a gun in a pregnant woman's stomach. That qualifies as a scumbag in my book.

That makes him a hero to the idiot OP.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Kirk said Floyd was a scumbag, but didn't deserve to die. His followers didn't have a problem with that remark. What would the response be if someone said Kirk was a scumbag but didn't deserve to die? How do those two remarks differ? Why is one acceptable but not the other?

/—-/ Please list the crimes Kirk committed that would make him a scumbag. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

[Billiejeens]

/—-/ Please list the crimes Kirk committed that would make him a scumbag. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

He wasn't woke.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Kirk said Floyd was a scumbag, but didn't deserve to die. His followers didn't have a problem with that remark. What would the response be if someone said Kirk was a scumbag but didn't deserve to die? How do those two remarks differ? Why is one acceptable but not the other?

because floyd was a crininal scumbag.

kirk was not

 

[Soupnazi630]

Many think Kirk was a scumbag.

based on lies

 

[Mac1958]

Many think Kirk was a scumbag.

He was just another hardcore partisan ideologue.

He definitely deserves credit for going to college campuses, and I'm sure he helped the MAGA cause there. That was definitely a smart move. But when he was there, he was another hardcore partisan ideologue, and that connected with those who were predisposed or on the fence.

This emotional worshop stuff is performative and meant to advance a political agenda. And I've noticed that some of them are a little annoyed that his wife has so quickly jumped into the saddle at TP.

 

[Frankenstein]

He was just another hardcore partisan ideologue.

He definitely deserves credit for going to college campuses, and I'm sure he helped the MAGA cause there. That was definitely a smart move. But when he was there, he was another hardcore partisan ideologue, and that connected with those who were predisposed or on the fence.

This emotional worshop stuff is performative and meant to advance a political agenda. And I've noticed that some of them are a little annoyed that his wife has so quickly jumped into the saddle at TP.

Because he debated people with a different point of view and believed in God? Every one is an Ideologue in some way, he allowed them to ask their questions.
Ah, I am starting to see the issue you have with him, he was a believer.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not excusing Floyds criminal behavior in any way. He did cause harm to a comparatively small number of people. However, Kirk's circle of damage was much wider. His rhetoric harmed countless numbers of people who just wanted to be left alone.

 

[Mac1958]

Because he debated people with a different point of view and believed in God? Every one is an Ideologue in some way, he allowed them to ask their questions.
Ah, I am starting to see the issue you have with him, he was a believer.

I'm not fond of phony Christians.

If you don't like that, tough shit.

 

[Frankenstein]

Not excusing Floyds criminal behavior in any way. He did cause harm to a comparatively small number of people. However, Kirk's circle of damage was much wider. His rhetoric harmed countless numbers of people who just wanted to be left alone.

Nonsense, how does civil debate harm people. You don't like that the right has pushed back against your social justice nonsense, with honest to goodness debate, and rebuttal of your issues.

 

[drudge X]

Not excusing Floyds criminal behavior in any way. He did cause harm to a comparatively small number of people. However, Kirk's circle of damage was much wider. His rhetoric harmed countless numbers of people who just wanted to be left alone.

So free speech for Kirk was a mistake?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Not excusing Floyds criminal behavior in any way. He did cause harm to a comparatively small number of people. However, Kirk's circle of damage was much wider. His rhetoric harmed countless numbers of people who just wanted to be left alone.

You don’t have to be harmed by rhetoric if you don’t want to be.

Just look at what goes on at USMB.

 

[Frankenstein]

I'm not fond of phony Christians.

If you don't like that, tough shit.

You don't know the first thing about Christianity, if you are a christian, aren't you being a little judgy with that plank in your eye, have you thrown the first rock in your glass house?

 

[Frankenstein]

So free speech for Kirk was a mistake?

Now your getting somewhere! The fact that he was allowed to have it is a mistake in their eyes, only hive minded, repeating of democrat social, policies will be accepted

 

[BULLDOG]

Nonsense, how does civil debate harm people. You don't like that the right has pushed back against your social justice nonsense, with honest to goodness debate, and rebuttal of your issues.

Kirk’s public persona was built around debate—but not always around civility. He invited confrontation and thrived on ideological clashes, often using sharp, polarizing language. While some saw him as a champion of free speech and civil engagement, others viewed his approach as combative and exclusionary. Kirk divided the country.

 

[Frankenstein]

Kirk’s public persona was built around debate—but not always around civility. He invited confrontation and thrived on ideological clashes, often using sharp, polarizing language. While some saw him as a champion of free speech and civil engagement, others viewed his approach as combative and exclusionary. Kirk divided the country.

You are full of it he spoke truth! You just don't like Truth, show me proof of your accusations or be gone!

 

[BULLDOG]

So free speech for Kirk was a mistake?

How could you possibly get that from what I said?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Not excusing Floyds criminal behavior in any way. He did cause harm to a comparatively small number of people. However, Kirk's circle of damage was much wider. His rhetoric harmed countless numbers of people who just wanted to be left alone.

Kirk harmed NO ONE.

he imposed on NO ONE that wanted to be left alone

 

[Soupnazi630]

Kirk’s public persona was built around debate—but not always around civility. He invited confrontation and thrived on ideological clashes, often using sharp, polarizing language. While some saw him as a champion of free speech and civil engagement, others viewed his approach as combative and exclusionary. Kirk divided the country.

He did not divide anything his invitation to talk and debate was a uniting action

 

[BULLDOG]

You don’t have to be harmed by rhetoric if you don’t want to be.

Just look at what goes on at USMB.

You would be right if kirks rhetoric didn't become actions.