Charlie Kirk shot at an event in Utah

[quintessentone]

We do, you can try to change the narrative, but with most of leftists openly celebrating, it's pretty fucking clear.

No it is not.

"After speaking against the Make America Great Again movement, Nick was also passionate about expressing what he felt for their leader: "When we look back in history, we will see Trump as a scam artist who served as a vehicle for this rather than the other way around. We were not the vehicle for Trump, Trump was the vehicle for all of us," Fuentes stated. Before the Epstein scandal, Nick used to be so vocal regarding his support for MAGA that he got banned from TikTok and Instagram.
 Years of backing everything President Trump said and did came to nothing, with Nick Fuentes being ready to move on from supporting someone he once admired over everything else. The content creator continues to be banned from some of the platforms that helped him come into the spotlight."

Nick Fuentes: A White Nationalist Problem for the Right - The New York Times

If the assassin truly was alt-right groyper following Nick Fuentes, then Fuentes fueled the flames.

[IAMTAT]

Where there's smoke there's fire.

"He also lashed out at the gay community, denouncing what he called the “LGBTQ agenda,” expressing opposition to same-sex marriage and suggesting that the Bible verse Leviticus 20:13, which endorses the execution of homosexuals, serves as “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
 “I don’t agree with your lifestyle,” Kirk told a gay Wisconsin college student last September. “I don’t think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexuality because that’s not who you are.”"

Where Charlie Kirk stood on guns, the LGBT+ community and the future of the United States | The Independent

And just how back then in Biblical times do you think they would execute homosexuals?

You chose to completely avoid answering my specific question:

"Earlier in the thread you said: "Charlie Kirk believed that gay people should be stoned to death".
After having read Stephen Kings' apologies (which I've posted above and below), do you stand by your statement: "Charlie Kirk believed that gay people should be stoned to death"."

...which is fine, since it wasn't even addressed to you.

[DBCowboy]

No it is not.

"After speaking against the Make America Great Again movement, Nick was also passionate about expressing what he felt for their leader: "When we look back in history, we will see Trump as a scam artist who served as a vehicle for this rather than the other way around. We were not the vehicle for Trump, Trump was the vehicle for all of us," Fuentes stated. Before the Epstein scandal, Nick used to be so vocal regarding his support for MAGA that he got banned from TikTok and Instagram.
 Years of backing everything President Trump said and did came to nothing, with Nick Fuentes being ready to move on from supporting someone he once admired over everything else. The content creator continues to be banned from some of the platforms that helped him come into the spotlight."

Nick Fuentes: A White Nationalist Problem for the Right - The New York Times

If the assassin truly was alt-right groyper following Nick Fuentes, then Fuentes fueled the flames.

No.  Nice try.

When you brand someone a Nazi or a fascist, then killing is justified, and that's what the left is doing and has done.

You can't change the narrative.

FActs will always defeat you.

[quintessentone]

Free speech and all that happy horse shit amirite?

These incessant attempts to justify his murder because "Well some people are offended by what he said" are fucking pathetic.

So apparently the march to a fucking civil war continues because you guys can't stop trying to justify it.

I'm not trying to justify his murder, I am trying to lay out the reasons why someone would want to murder him. The assassin said it was because he believed he was pushing hate.

[quintessentone]

You chose to completely avoid answering my specific question:

"Earlier in the thread you said: "Charlie Kirk believed that gay people should be stoned to death".
After having read Stephen Kings' apologies (which I've posted above and below), do you stand by your statement: "Charlie Kirk believed that gay people should be stoned to death"."

...which is fine, since it wasn't even addressed to you.

The media screwed up the context, but Kirk did reference a bible passage about executing homosexuals.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Why do you think you are going to convince us that it's ok to celebrate someone's murder because they don't like that person's words with these far reaching, almost nonsensical attempts to do so?

Attempting to justify it means you are fine with it and that also means you are part of the problem. 

You might as well admit it that you celebrated it too.

Oh no, deflection and DARVO works so much better. 

Hypothetical debate answer: 

Silly boy.  You're just a boy. I dont have to respond to silly boys with any respect in this society.  Not if Charlie Kirk can tell me to go serve men from the kitchen. You're place is to be made insecure by domineering women. Women that laugh at insecure silly boys that try to reverse the tone of confrontation with last wordism and chest puffing..

You're insecure and you hate differently opinionated women. Especially feminists. Admit it! Its okay, you're biology makes you more basic and prone to set and predictable behavior.

And no, I dont fucking celebrate lawless political violence. I'll give you the standard virtue signaled disclaimer always. 

But I also wanted to actively demonstrate an inverted version of Kirk's debate style. 

And what if i argued that way always?

Just made Ad Hom personal attacks and put words in your mouth? I didn't answer youre question and just baited you... and called it "debating." 

Would you care if I got famous going to small cities in the South to hold Town Halls where I talk about "Ward of The State Gender Affirming Care" or "alternatives to breeding" and respond like that to people who criticize me. And then got shot for it? 

Or would you say, "That's what I get for going to the most conservative part of the bible belt to troll people?"  

Be honest.

[DBCowboy]

I'm not trying to justify his murder, I am trying to lay out the reasons why someone would want to murder him. The assassin said it was because he believed he was pushing hate.

And that is justification?

YOU push hate every damned day!!

Because it disagrees with "my truth".

[quintessentone]

No.  Nice try.

When you brand someone a Nazi or a fascist, then killing is justified, and that's what the left is doing and has done.

You can't change the narrative.

FActs will always defeat you.

Well if the assassin was indeed following Fuentes alt-right and Fuentes was against Trump calling it all a scam, then why is it difficult to believe a young man would think the government and all those that speak for it are not fascists?

You can keep your narrative it makes no difference to me, I'm just trying to figure out what the assassin's beliefs and motives were and it's confusing because so much evidence points to him being a goyner. If my posts bother you then you can just ignore them.

[RazorV66]

No it is not.

"After speaking against the Make America Great Again movement, Nick was also passionate about expressing what he felt for their leader: "When we look back in history, we will see Trump as a scam artist who served as a vehicle for this rather than the other way around. We were not the vehicle for Trump, Trump was the vehicle for all of us," Fuentes stated. Before the Epstein scandal, Nick used to be so vocal regarding his support for MAGA that he got banned from TikTok and Instagram.
 Years of backing everything President Trump said and did came to nothing, with Nick Fuentes being ready to move on from supporting someone he once admired over everything else. The content creator continues to be banned from some of the platforms that helped him come into the spotlight."

Nick Fuentes: A White Nationalist Problem for the Right - The New York Times

If the assassin truly was alt-right groyper following Nick Fuentes, then Fuentes fueled the flames.

Nick Fuentes himself pisses on the fire you are trying to start.

https://x.com/Antunes1/status/1966338818765894050?s=09


Keep trying to justify celebrating Kirk's murder, we can see you.

[DBCowboy]

 . . . .  I'm just trying to figure out what the assassin's beliefs and motives were and it's confusing because so much evidence points to him being a goyner. If my posts bother you then you can just ignore them.

No you are not.

You (as usual) try to obfuscate and distort the actual FACTS.