Yeah, he’s now just reached the verbal masturbation stage, repeatedly telling us all how brilliant he is. You’re missing no actual content.
I suppose I need to take hints from the guy who just keeps repeating the word “reflection”?
Looking at your first post in this thread, you shouldn’t really be too surprised that you’re getting a lot of blowback here. The first part is great at explaining why you thought she gave a good speech, but then you ended it with a direct insult. If you had left that part out and just sincerely explained your viewpoint without adding insults, you would have had a great opportunity to bring a conservative voice to the discussion. Instead, it’s become a food fight where everyone is just throwing insults back and forth. In addition, it’s just cementing the viewpoint about Kirk’s followers that the liberal audience here has about him. If you joined the thread to blow off steam and insult critics of Kirk, congrats!, you’ve accomplished that. But if you were hoping to educate people about the positives of Kirk, that’s not going so well.
I’m not going to look up the context of this quote, because I don’t want to ruin my morning, but how is it possible to ignore that a big part of these deaths is due to school shootings? Children are being sacrificed so gun nuts don’t lose even a tiny bit of their “rights”.
Oh, don’t worry - none of us are under the illusion you have any interest or ability to learn anything. Including, apparently, basic reading comprehension.
That presumes a good faith approach patently not in evidence.
Was it this thread?
Pit Chorus: What, never?
Pedro: No, never!
After reading the thread above,
Pit Chorus: What, never?
Pedro: Hardly ever!
Thank you! I didn’t want to respond directly to our fair sea mammal, but I can reply to you.
Recent events show that dialog is not something the left understands. Beating some jagoff to a pulp until they cry and run away to put me on ignore feels pretty good too. Looking at Cervaise now.
Is this getting close to objectively demonstrated?
You have been here long enough to know this kind of question should be addressed to the mods privately dumbass.
[Moderation]
Don’t junior mod.
[/Moderation]
I just pissed myself…
If you take this utterance seriously, then shooters are instruments of God and their victims are a religious sacrifice. Charlie then was just road kill on the highway to the new Christian Utopia.
Charlie was just a parasite grazing on the population in the lower half of the intelligence bell curve. Nothing he said was serious, just platitudes to placate his hosts while he sucks out about $400,000 a year in cash and benefits. As a parasite he was a taker. He never produced anything.
Only because Trump hates wind powered electric generation.
You mean this guy:
??
You do not think there is any other way to look at what he said? Using a criteria of reasonableness, just looking at the quote in isolation without other context, your interpretation is completely extreme and lacks any merit. More reasonable interpretations are of course more likely.
Then present them and the context.
Of course not, because it is just a platitude for the ill informed. No reasonable and prudent person would take the statement seriously.
If a more reasonable interpretation exists, please provide it.
And once again, QED.
Well I can tell you how I look at it and why I think I agree with Charlie Kirk.
Just statistically a society with lots of guns is going to have more shooting fatalities than one without guns. Some of these fatalities are tragic and would probably have been prevented with gun control.
For example the case of a gun owner who was careless cleaning his gun and died as a result. Tragic and preventable. Or a road rage incident with shooting fatalities. Tragic and preventable. Without guns maybe some punches would have been thrown instead and no one would have been seriously injured.
Is this worth giving up guns for? No it isn’t, in mine and Charlie’s opinion. The positive aspects of an armed society, such as protection of my family and property, freedom from oppression, etc makes this right worth preserving, even though some preventable deaths will happen.
The part about the right being “God given” is not something I believe in and I do not think it is relevant to understand or explain the gun rights argument being made.
Does this make sense?
Later I hope to address the issue you raised of Turning Points financial compensation.