Charlie Kirk Shot at university campus

MXMattii wrote:

@Brad460 Your take on democrats murdered by a democrat is a lie, Vance Luther Boelter his friends and family called him "conservative, Republican-oriented and an evangelical...

@Brad460 Your take on democrats murdered by a democrat is a lie, Vance Luther Boelter his friends and family called him "conservative, Republican-oriented and an evangelical Christian". But now it could be that a right-wing activist killed a right-wing activist because the one wasn't extreme enough for the other? Killing each other for having another world view or killing each other for having a similar world view but being angry about the fact that the popular one isn't being extreme enough. No matter what will become the truth, it will be a sad truth because freedom of speech is one of the most important bases for a democracy. No matter if you say something that the president doesn't like or the garbage collector.
 

Some have attempted to draw a link between Robinson and the far-right Groyper movement, a decentralized group of white nationalists who organize online and coalesce around obscure and extremist meme culture. The movement had been at odds with Kirk’s brand of conservatism for some time. Online sleuths noted that a Halloween costume worn by Robinson closely resembled a Groyer mascot, and that the Bella Ciao song appeared on a recent public Groyper playlist. But experts on the group have downplayed the evidence so far.    

Professor Joan Donovan, assistant professor of journalism at Boston University and an expert in extremism who has written a book about meme culture, said Robinson appeared to have “relied heavily on memes to express his own personality.”

“There is nothing expressively conclusive about his participation in specific online groups as of now. His social media and posting histories are not available. But these memes tend to be posted on more politically incorrect anonymous message boards and gamer chat apps,” she told TIME.

The ambiguity is the point, she added.

"What memes say about people can be complicated, but they can illustrate what someone finds to be funny or signal their affiliation with certain online subcultures," Professor Donovan said.

"In the set of engravings, he referenced some more ambiguous symbols and a clearly homophobic joke. The ambiguity is a crucial element of memes because not everyone is in on the reference or knows its origins," she added.

Key Facts

* Groypers appeared to emerge as a far-right political movement in 2019 as followers of Fuentes, with similar beliefs to other alt-right and white supremacist groups and grounded in traditional Christian values, characterizing themselves as “American nationalists," according to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

* The group is named after a racist-coded version of the “Pepe” meme affiliated with the alt-right, which members use online to clash with other conservatives.

* In 2019, Fuentes ordered his followers to target question-and-answer events held by conservatives who aligned with President Donald Trump, including a series of events hosted by Kirk, during which Fuentes and his followers heckled crowdgoers and hurled homophobic and antisemitic questions.

* Kirk was often targeted by Groypers, who believed Kirk’s political beliefs leaned too moderate.

* Fuentes and his followers have since been banned from attending Turning Point USA events and the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, and Fuentes has often held a competing conference, the America First Political Action Conference, featuring speakers including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., former Idaho Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin and Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers, a Republican, among others.

* A number of Groypers were identified as rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to congressional testimony by Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt.

 

Brad460 wrote:

Sorry you just don’t understand…

LoudLove wrote:

What difference does any of this make?  Holy crap, the energy people spend anonymously debating stuff is exhausting.  Carry on…

early wrote:

How would you guys define "fascist"?

Bill_Carroll wrote:

This is in line with my Opinion. "Us vs. them": Fascists define the "national community" by creating an "ingroup" and demonizing an "outgroup," or "others,"...

This is in line with my Opinion.

 "Us vs. them": Fascists define the "national community" by creating an "ingroup" and demonizing an "outgroup," or "others," who are scapegoated for the nation's problems.

cheesehead420 wrote:

If you consider that definition to be accurate, then both parties display fascist tendencies.zoom out couple clicks more and it’s pretty clear that the government (regardless...

If you consider that definition to be accurate, then both parties display fascist tendencies.

zoom out couple clicks more and it’s pretty clear that the government (regardless of administration) and institutions of the United States as well as the vast majority countries in the world display fascist tendencies. 

I mean if not through terror, coercion and psychological manipulation how else do you expect .02% of the population to maintain ownership over 99% of the world’s wealth and power over 99.8% of the population ? 

LoudLove wrote:

What difference does any of this make?  Holy crap, the energy people spend anonymously debating stuff is exhausting.  Carry on…

MXMattii wrote:

To be honest, I guess that a lot of people debate/talk about it because they defend and protect their own view on the world. Because what...

To be honest, I guess that a lot of people debate/talk about it because they defend and protect their own view on the world. Because what if the shooter isn't a "Woke, Tranny Loving, Extreme Left-Wing, Eco-fundamentalist, Riding with a Electric Scooter person?" We know that his family was close to the local church and their priest, that he and his family used guns for recreation purpose, his family are registered voters for the republican party... It all sounds like your typical American family and their son and if that is the case, everyone who has a kid has probably the same question: "If he was just the boy next door, what made him do this". Because you want to prevent this radicalization process from happening at home with your children.

So it is way easier to make the shooter a freak, with or without well-founded arguments.

jumpinjimmyrivers wrote:

3 Tres wrote:

Looks like the earlier reports are being confirmed as major outlets are now running it: 

Looks like the earlier reports are being confirmed as major outlets are now running it:

 

LoudLove wrote:

What difference does any of this make?  Holy crap, the energy people spend anonymously debating stuff is exhausting.  Carry on…

MXMattii wrote:

To be honest, I guess that a lot of people debate/talk about it because they defend and protect their own view on the world. Because what...

To be honest, I guess that a lot of people debate/talk about it because they defend and protect their own view on the world. Because what if the shooter isn't a "Woke, Tranny Loving, Extreme Left-Wing, Eco-fundamentalist, Riding with a Electric Scooter person?" We know that his family was close to the local church and their priest, that he and his family used guns for recreation purpose, his family are registered voters for the republican party... It all sounds like your typical American family and their son and if that is the case, everyone who has a kid has probably the same question: "If he was just the boy next door, what made him do this". Because you want to prevent this radicalization process from happening at home with your children.

So it is way easier to make the shooter a freak, with or without well-founded arguments.

Bill_Carroll wrote:

This is in line with my Opinion. "Us vs. them": Fascists define the "national community" by creating an "ingroup" and demonizing an "outgroup," or "others,"...

This is in line with my Opinion.

 "Us vs. them": Fascists define the "national community" by creating an "ingroup" and demonizing an "outgroup," or "others," who are scapegoated for the nation's problems.

cheesehead420 wrote:

If you consider that definition to be accurate, then both parties display fascist tendencies.zoom out couple clicks more and it’s pretty clear that the government (regardless...

If you consider that definition to be accurate, then both parties display fascist tendencies.

zoom out couple clicks more and it’s pretty clear that the government (regardless of administration) and institutions of the United States as well as the vast majority countries in the world display fascist tendencies. 

I mean if not through terror, coercion and psychological manipulation how else do you expect .02% of the population to maintain ownership over 99% of the world’s wealth and power over 99.8% of the population ? 

MPJC wrote:

If the term “fascist” is so broad that it applies to almost everyone then it’s being used in a way too broad to be useful. Most of...

If the term “fascist” is so broad that it applies to almost everyone then it’s being used in a way too broad to be useful. 

Most of the people using it simply don’t know what it means in anything beyond a superficial, generic sense. But it’s not meant as a literal description or category. It’s just a general derogatory term. Like calling someone a dick. He’s not literally a dick. The same is true of “Marxist” or “socialist”. Very few people who use the terms as derogatory descriptors have much of an idea about what Marx actually said. 

cheesehead420 wrote:

Sure, but even under the most narrow definition and regardless of administration, America and many other countries display almost all the attributes of fascism. All fascist regimes...

Sure, but even under the most narrow definition and regardless of administration, America and many other countries display almost all the attributes of fascism. 

All fascist regimes are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. However, all hierarchical regimes, societies and institutions are authoritarian. 

As I said in my previous post, how else can  1% of the population be expected to maintain possession over 99% of the world’s wealth and control over 99% of the population if not by coercion, violence and physiological manipulation? It certainly isn’t being accomplished by egalitarian methods. 

cheesehead420 wrote:

Sure, but even under the most narrow definition and regardless of administration, America and many other countries display almost all the attributes of fascism. All fascist regimes...

Sure, but even under the most narrow definition and regardless of administration, America and many other countries display almost all the attributes of fascism. 

All fascist regimes are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. However, all hierarchical regimes, societies and institutions are authoritarian. 

As I said in my previous post, how else can  1% of the population be expected to maintain possession over 99% of the world’s wealth and control over 99% of the population if not by coercion, violence and physiological manipulation? It certainly isn’t being accomplished by egalitarian methods. 

early wrote:

If there's 1 thing powerful people love, it's losing their power.

cheesehead420 wrote:

If you consider that definition to be accurate, then both parties display fascist tendencies.zoom out couple clicks more and it’s pretty clear that the government (regardless...

If you consider that definition to be accurate, then both parties display fascist tendencies.

zoom out couple clicks more and it’s pretty clear that the government (regardless of administration) and institutions of the United States as well as the vast majority countries in the world display fascist tendencies. 

I mean if not through terror, coercion and psychological manipulation how else do you expect .02% of the population to maintain ownership over 99% of the world’s wealth and power over 99.8% of the population ? 

MPJC wrote:

If the term “fascist” is so broad that it applies to almost everyone then it’s being used in a way too broad to be useful. Most of...

If the term “fascist” is so broad that it applies to almost everyone then it’s being used in a way too broad to be useful. 

Most of the people using it simply don’t know what it means in anything beyond a superficial, generic sense. But it’s not meant as a literal description or category. It’s just a general derogatory term. Like calling someone a dick. He’s not literally a dick. The same is true of “Marxist” or “socialist”. Very few people who use the terms as derogatory descriptors have much of an idea about what Marx actually said. 

cheesehead420 wrote:

Sure, but even under the most narrow definition and regardless of administration, America and many other countries display almost all the attributes of fascism. All fascist regimes...

Sure, but even under the most narrow definition and regardless of administration, America and many other countries display almost all the attributes of fascism. 

All fascist regimes are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. However, all hierarchical regimes, societies and institutions are authoritarian. 

As I said in my previous post, how else can  1% of the population be expected to maintain possession over 99% of the world’s wealth and control over 99% of the population if not by coercion, violence and physiological manipulation? It certainly isn’t being accomplished by egalitarian methods. 

LoudLove wrote:

What difference does any of this make?  Holy crap, the energy people spend anonymously debating stuff is exhausting.  Carry on…

MXMattii wrote:

To be honest, I guess that a lot of people debate/talk about it because they defend and protect their own view on the world. Because what...

To be honest, I guess that a lot of people debate/talk about it because they defend and protect their own view on the world. Because what if the shooter isn't a "Woke, Tranny Loving, Extreme Left-Wing, Eco-fundamentalist, Riding with a Electric Scooter person?" We know that his family was close to the local church and their priest, that he and his family used guns for recreation purpose, his family are registered voters for the republican party... It all sounds like your typical American family and their son and if that is the case, everyone who has a kid has probably the same question: "If he was just the boy next door, what made him do this". Because you want to prevent this radicalization process from happening at home with your children.

So it is way easier to make the shooter a freak, with or without well-founded arguments.

profeshenal125 wrote:

Shooters  boyfriend is a trans guy or whatever you call them .  Abe Lincoln was bisexual. Dem senators quite a few gay there. Hs kids top...

Shooters  boyfriend is a trans guy or whatever you call them .  Abe Lincoln was bisexual. Dem senators quite a few gay there. Hs kids top of the class where live on the radio in DC 3 yrs ago . Saying the old dems said they had the best drugs & if they ever had gay sex pressuring them into it. Kind of a trend there . Rember Galiger Rep senator ? Quit immediately. That was because he started to rise up in DC. He flew home to Green Bay from DC. And had a dem hit man waiting inside his house with his wife & children home  held hostage . He received a lot of death threats from the dems. .  The dems r crazy man , they,ll do anything to push there agenda . 

Westcoast Mariner wrote:

So when this Robson kid is transported to/from jail to make his court appearances I wonder if he will given a bullet proof vest ?Or will...

So when this Robson kid is transported to/from jail to make his court appearances I wonder if he will given a bullet proof vest ?

Or will they drive him directly into the basement of the court house ?

Wonder when he is sitting jail if he will alone ?

Here is to Robson knowing how to use a bed sheet for something other than putting a mattress.

He best hope the judge/jury have been in a cave for the last few years and have no idea who Charlie Kirk was.

Once he is jail he will be fair game in general pop.

Somebody at some point in time will get to him in a very unpleasant way…..I hope anyway. 
Like Jeffery Dalmer, Canadian Willie pickin who admitted to killing 49 prostitutes in Vancouver but was only charged/convicted of 12 deaths.
The only famous killer I know that died of natural causes in jail was Charlie Manson .

I’m not religious in anyway, I did get married in a church so that’s my religious history. But I hope God will see no good can come from this kid living another day.

 

MPJC wrote:

If the term “fascist” is so broad that it applies to almost everyone then it’s being used in a way too broad to be useful. Most of...

If the term “fascist” is so broad that it applies to almost everyone then it’s being used in a way too broad to be useful. 

Most of the people using it simply don’t know what it means in anything beyond a superficial, generic sense. But it’s not meant as a literal description or category. It’s just a general derogatory term. Like calling someone a dick. He’s not literally a dick. The same is true of “Marxist” or “socialist”. Very few people who use the terms as derogatory descriptors have much of an idea about what Marx actually said. 

cheesehead420 wrote:

Sure, but even under the most narrow definition and regardless of administration, America and many other countries display almost all the attributes of fascism. All fascist regimes...

Sure, but even under the most narrow definition and regardless of administration, America and many other countries display almost all the attributes of fascism. 

All fascist regimes are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. However, all hierarchical regimes, societies and institutions are authoritarian. 

As I said in my previous post, how else can  1% of the population be expected to maintain possession over 99% of the world’s wealth and control over 99% of the population if not by coercion, violence and physiological manipulation? It certainly isn’t being accomplished by egalitarian methods. 

MPJC wrote:

Suppose we grant for the sake of argument that America is authoritarian. You say that not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. So America could be one...

Suppose we grant for the sake of argument that America is authoritarian. You say that not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. So America could be one of those non-fascist authoritarian regimes? Your reasoning suggests that there’s a certain way of being authoritarian that crosses over into fascism. 

“Authoritarian” by your definition means “some have authority over others” (I gather that from your reference to hierarchical regimes and from things you’ve said elsewhere). That means that any government where anyone has the power to enforce laws is authoritarian on this definition.That’s not what people generally mean by “authoritarian”. I think most of us are not only comfortable with having political and legal authorities that have power over us, we think it’s necessary. We disagree about this, and that’s ok. 

It’s possible that the vast inequality you describe is the result of manipulation (e.g. people being fooled into voting against their own interests). I don’t doubt that there is a fair amount of that. Perhaps some outright coercion as well. It’s also possible that it’s - at least in part - an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Furthermore, it’s also possible that capitalism produces such vast amounts of wealth that the trade off in inequality is worth it. You can have a wealth distribution that is completely flat (everyone has the same) but nobody has much. That’s not desirable either. Even an egalitarian like John Rawls concedes that deviations from equality are justified if they improve the wealth of the least well off. If we’re not in the situation of a zero sum game (e.g. we’re not slicing up a pie so that you getting more means I get less; rather, we’re making more pies) then if inequality is the result of our individual choices it’s not obvious that it’s an injustice. There could be injustice (eg if wealth is acquired through exploitation) but the mere fact of inequality doesn’t imply injustice. Again, we’re probably going to disagree about this and that’s ok. 

All of this about equality being said, a major problem is that the average person is becoming worse off while the ultra rich are getting richer. I think that both sides of the aisle recognize that and have different approaches to addressing that. That’s part of the conversation that Charlie Kirk was involved in. Asking questions like: What do we want to do about our problems? What kind of society do we want? A problem with wanting a non-hierarchical society is that people disagree about how to go about solving such problems but we need to do something nevertheless, and doing something can require a certain amount of coordinated action. So we put our ideas out there, try to persuade others to vote for policies that we believe in, and then put it to a vote and accept the results. If the side we prefer loses, we acquiesce and try again next time. In the meantime, I might have a government that has power over me that I as an individual may not have chosen, but we as a people chose. This is ok because I’m not so important that I should get my way even if most of my fellow citizens want a different way. If I don’t like it I can try harder next time to persuade more people to agree with me. I may not consent to every aspect of law I’ll be subjected to, but I can consent to this process, and if this process gives us each an equal voice and an equal vote, perhaps that’s the best we can hope for. Charlie Kirk participated robustly in this process and made a difference. What we need is to be able to accept such things without resorting to violence. That is what a fascist would do - use violence rather than persuasion. Hence the extreme absurdity of saying that Charlie was a fascist and being pleased by his murder (as some on the left have expressed) when Charlie was exemplify democratic participation and killing him is about the most fascist thing one could do. 
 

MXMattii wrote:

To be honest, I guess that a lot of people debate/talk about it because they defend and protect their own view on the world. Because what...

To be honest, I guess that a lot of people debate/talk about it because they defend and protect their own view on the world. Because what if the shooter isn't a "Woke, Tranny Loving, Extreme Left-Wing, Eco-fundamentalist, Riding with a Electric Scooter person?" We know that his family was close to the local church and their priest, that he and his family used guns for recreation purpose, his family are registered voters for the republican party... It all sounds like your typical American family and their son and if that is the case, everyone who has a kid has probably the same question: "If he was just the boy next door, what made him do this". Because you want to prevent this radicalization process from happening at home with your children.

So it is way easier to make the shooter a freak, with or without well-founded arguments.

profeshenal125 wrote:

Shooters  boyfriend is a trans guy or whatever you call them .  Abe Lincoln was bisexual. Dem senators quite a few gay there. Hs kids top...

Shooters  boyfriend is a trans guy or whatever you call them .  Abe Lincoln was bisexual. Dem senators quite a few gay there. Hs kids top of the class where live on the radio in DC 3 yrs ago . Saying the old dems said they had the best drugs & if they ever had gay sex pressuring them into it. Kind of a trend there . Rember Galiger Rep senator ? Quit immediately. That was because he started to rise up in DC. He flew home to Green Bay from DC. And had a dem hit man waiting inside his house with his wife & children home  held hostage . He received a lot of death threats from the dems. .  The dems r crazy man , they,ll do anything to push there agenda . 

MXMattii wrote:

The real Sasquatch wrote:

Dont take this wrong, i feel for kirks family and think it was horrible that he was killed.  But there have been 302 mass shootings this year...

Dont take this wrong, i feel for kirks family and think it was horrible that he was killed. 

 

But there have been 302 mass shootings this year, with 1656 people injured or killed.  9 of them being at schools , resulting in 35 injuries and 4 deaths.  There should be the same level or more of outrage that totally innocent kids got killed,saw their friends killed or injured ,in most cases not for what they said,or did, or really any other reason than some sick person wanted to hurt people.  That in to me is at least as tragic as somebody who chose to put themselves into a position of  higher risk. 

EDITED to add this line of text under and fix some spelling issues. 

I say higher risk because people that state strong opinions publicly always have people that make death threats( Left or right, or non political), and that gives them more of an awareness than a child at a school would have of a possible danger.

   

 Keep in mind, my mother did talk radio and received death threats and had one close call. She knew the risk of getting more people worked up as long as she kept having strong opinions.  

I'm not blaming kirk for his own death, just saying that by comparison school shooters seem to be much more evil and random. And to see Kirk's death get so many people riled up, but  hardly see much when there's another school shot up, is sad. I would be extremely sad if my mothers would be killer had been  able to kill her. But I would still feel the same.    

Kids are literally the future. The school shooting that happened the same day as kirk has not gotten 1/10000 of the attention and I could count the times i've hear it mentioned on one hand. 

 

 Again not minimizing Kirk's death, just saying it would be nice if everybody wanted to stop the other mass/school  shootings with the same passion. 

burn1986 wrote:

Once he’s alone in jail, reality sets in. The blinders are pulled off and he will finally see the horror of what he’s done. All the...

Once he’s alone in jail, reality sets in. The blinders are pulled off and he will finally see the horror of what he’s done. All the fervor and martyr attitude are gone. Hopefully he will seek God at that point. Either way, he’ll still face the consequences. 

Black Diesel Bomber wrote:

I didn't see any false reports, did you?  I only saw speculation, and one photo that was incorrect.Back to the question, do you wear those furry...

I didn't see any false reports, did you?  I only saw speculation, and one photo that was incorrect.

Back to the question, do you wear those furry costumes and take selfies of yourself for the web?

TAUTOG wrote:

I saw one and the pic you mentioned.bro, furry costume? hahaha okay sureAs a straight man I've smoked out of a bong shaped like a penis...

I saw one and the pic you mentioned.

bro, furry costume? hahaha okay sure

As a straight man I've smoked out of a bong shaped like a penis partying with friends in a garage full of motorcycles. Not sure if there are any pictures of it tho

Black Diesel Bomber wrote:

Who's the one who owned a penis shaped bong?  Gag gift or maybe some chick owned it?

cheesehead420 wrote:

Sure, but even under the most narrow definition and regardless of administration, America and many other countries display almost all the attributes of fascism. All fascist regimes...

Sure, but even under the most narrow definition and regardless of administration, America and many other countries display almost all the attributes of fascism. 

All fascist regimes are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. However, all hierarchical regimes, societies and institutions are authoritarian. 

As I said in my previous post, how else can  1% of the population be expected to maintain possession over 99% of the world’s wealth and control over 99% of the population if not by coercion, violence and physiological manipulation? It certainly isn’t being accomplished by egalitarian methods. 

MPJC wrote:

Suppose we grant for the sake of argument that America is authoritarian. You say that not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. So America could be one...

Suppose we grant for the sake of argument that America is authoritarian. You say that not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. So America could be one of those non-fascist authoritarian regimes? Your reasoning suggests that there’s a certain way of being authoritarian that crosses over into fascism. 

“Authoritarian” by your definition means “some have authority over others” (I gather that from your reference to hierarchical regimes and from things you’ve said elsewhere). That means that any government where anyone has the power to enforce laws is authoritarian on this definition.That’s not what people generally mean by “authoritarian”. I think most of us are not only comfortable with having political and legal authorities that have power over us, we think it’s necessary. We disagree about this, and that’s ok. 

It’s possible that the vast inequality you describe is the result of manipulation (e.g. people being fooled into voting against their own interests). I don’t doubt that there is a fair amount of that. Perhaps some outright coercion as well. It’s also possible that it’s - at least in part - an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Furthermore, it’s also possible that capitalism produces such vast amounts of wealth that the trade off in inequality is worth it. You can have a wealth distribution that is completely flat (everyone has the same) but nobody has much. That’s not desirable either. Even an egalitarian like John Rawls concedes that deviations from equality are justified if they improve the wealth of the least well off. If we’re not in the situation of a zero sum game (e.g. we’re not slicing up a pie so that you getting more means I get less; rather, we’re making more pies) then if inequality is the result of our individual choices it’s not obvious that it’s an injustice. There could be injustice (eg if wealth is acquired through exploitation) but the mere fact of inequality doesn’t imply injustice. Again, we’re probably going to disagree about this and that’s ok. 

All of this about equality being said, a major problem is that the average person is becoming worse off while the ultra rich are getting richer. I think that both sides of the aisle recognize that and have different approaches to addressing that. That’s part of the conversation that Charlie Kirk was involved in. Asking questions like: What do we want to do about our problems? What kind of society do we want? A problem with wanting a non-hierarchical society is that people disagree about how to go about solving such problems but we need to do something nevertheless, and doing something can require a certain amount of coordinated action. So we put our ideas out there, try to persuade others to vote for policies that we believe in, and then put it to a vote and accept the results. If the side we prefer loses, we acquiesce and try again next time. In the meantime, I might have a government that has power over me that I as an individual may not have chosen, but we as a people chose. This is ok because I’m not so important that I should get my way even if most of my fellow citizens want a different way. If I don’t like it I can try harder next time to persuade more people to agree with me. I may not consent to every aspect of law I’ll be subjected to, but I can consent to this process, and if this process gives us each an equal voice and an equal vote, perhaps that’s the best we can hope for. Charlie Kirk participated robustly in this process and made a difference. What we need is to be able to accept such things without resorting to violence. That is what a fascist would do - use violence rather than persuasion. Hence the extreme absurdity of saying that Charlie was a fascist and being pleased by his murder (as some on the left have expressed) when Charlie was exemplify democratic participation and killing him is about the most fascist thing one could do. 
 

cheesehead420 wrote:

That’s a lot to digest and I’ll be the first to admit that I do not have all the answers. I do not possess the ability...

That’s a lot to digest and I’ll be the first to admit that I do not have all the answers. I do not possess the ability to state freely and clearly how to make things right but I am certain that things are wrong and that there is another way. Language has its shortcomings and I believe it fails us in our desire to express the true nature of things. 
Also, all of my opinions and thoughts on how to make what is wrong right, or at least more right then it currently is, relies on the existence of a universal pantheistic or impersonal God “revealed in the lawful harmony of the universe”. 

I am certain that things could be a lot better and the way in which we get there would actually take a lot less effort then we currently use to maintain our current modality. The laws of man are in contradiction to the laws of Nature. This disheartens me and I believe to be a fact, whether conscious or subconscious, that is detrimental to the spirit of all mankind. Even the richest of the rich and the most elite of the elites suffer this. 

I know you say you’re an atheist, but can you not believe in the observable phenomenon of Nature? Which is to say, can you not have faith in the ultimate creative power of the universe? Which is then to say, can you not have faith in Man? 

Have you read Emerson, or explored the writings of Swedenborg, Spinoza or Steiner? 

Westcoast Mariner wrote:

So when this Robson kid is transported to/from jail to make his court appearances I wonder if he will given a bullet proof vest ?Or will...

So when this Robson kid is transported to/from jail to make his court appearances I wonder if he will given a bullet proof vest ?

Or will they drive him directly into the basement of the court house ?

Wonder when he is sitting jail if he will alone ?

Here is to Robson knowing how to use a bed sheet for something other than putting a mattress.

He best hope the judge/jury have been in a cave for the last few years and have no idea who Charlie Kirk was.

Once he is jail he will be fair game in general pop.

Somebody at some point in time will get to him in a very unpleasant way…..I hope anyway. 
Like Jeffery Dalmer, Canadian Willie pickin who admitted to killing 49 prostitutes in Vancouver but was only charged/convicted of 12 deaths.
The only famous killer I know that died of natural causes in jail was Charlie Manson .

I’m not religious in anyway, I did get married in a church so that’s my religious history. But I hope God will see no good can come from this kid living another day.