i don't celebrate anyone's murder, and this escalation of political violence is really concerning to me.

but - what is it that you're all mourning about charlie kirk? i'm sure he was a nice guy when he was in his pyjamas, but publicly he seemed like a toxic and intolerant person, wilfully spreading lies and misinformation and encouraging the dire political situation they have now in the US.

or am i missing something?

Totally agree with this, feel terrible for his family especially his children, no child should lose their father in such a horrific manner. However stirring conflict while being unashamedly bigoted and pushing a pro gun agenda is inevitably risky and incredibly irresponsible. There are consequences to endlessly stirring the pot for personal gain.

He also preached that he wouldn't allow his daughter an abortion even if she had been raped...

unfortunately not a niche opinion in magaland.

It's not the baby's fault.

So does a woman have any rights over her own body?

you are right he was a POS

No.

What lies and misinformation exactly?

a few examples . . . .

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/website-reviews/politifact/user-reviews/adult

The fact that it cites the news as sources for fact checking tells me all I need to know.

actually mostly it's referencing his own twitter feed.

Still, saying his opinions are wrong because the news says so is not very credible. Sure he's said some BS, like every other person on this planet.
If wanting to conserve sovereignty, freedom, secularism and family values is so wrong, who in their right mind wants to be right?
He died for what he believed in which is way more than anyone here will ever do, so get off your high horse with the finger pointing like he's not worthy of mourning because you disagree with him.
I'm more interested in the things he said during the last couple of days before his assassination, like during his interview with Ben Shapiro, and him now conveniently taking over his non-profit organisation.

How was he protecting secularism when he preached there should be no seperation between church and state?

"There is no separation of church and state, it’s a fabrication. It’s a fiction. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists." In his own words. Not very secular.

"In a 2018 interview with the Rubin Report, he argued that politics should be advanced through a secular worldview and there should be a separation of church and state. He said the imposition of a Christian version of morality through government policy, was wrong"

Yes but he revised that viewpoint. That is why he made the comment I quoted in 2022 on his own podcast.

I wasn't aware he changed his mind on that subject, my apologies.
However, without delving too far into conspiracy theories, it seems many funders of TPUSA appear to support forms of political and legal work that weaken or reinterpret traditional notions of strict church-state separation, especially where they believe certain Christian values should inform public policy, or where religious institutions should receive public support.
Even so, I fail to see how he's said anything to warrant getting shot in the neck in front of his family as well as many others.
It's disgusting how so many here are keen to piss on his memory for disagreeing with him. I thought we were better than this, but apparently not.

actually i think i was pretty clear from the outset that i was never going to celebrate someone getting murdered. and i never said he had it coming.

i just didn't understand why he seemed to be held up as some kind of hero, when he seemed to be a person that was invested in societal division. that seemed to be a strange kind of hero to me.

and, as i already said, much of what is reported came straight from his own twitter feed. not sure why that's contentious to then be relaying here.

i actually think the LB community is, in general, a place of great compassion. some of us are perhaps a little more wary than others of celebrating the life of someone who seemed to be invested in creating division and amplifying hatred.

anyhoo, i'm not here to get into a pointless argument. ciao for now :-)

Didn't know we were arguing.
There's not a huge difference between celebrating someone's murder and jumping at the opportunity to voice your negative opinions and questioning people's justification to mourn a person in a thread about mourning said person. Maybe people's wishes for society differ from your own and he gave a voice to many such opinions, good and bad? There's a time and a place, and you had to butt in here to spew negativity as if it adds good to the world. You're coming off as self-righteous and intolerant - exactly how you portray what you're criticising. It's obviously contentious to relay that in a thread titled RIP Charlie Kirk, and I think you understand that perfect well.
He did many heroic things, especially the one that got him killed - wether he's a hero or not though is entirely subjective, so serve little purpose in this discussion.
I couldn't care less about the left/right drama, I just want peace, quiet and prosperity for all. He gave everyone who wanted to speak a platform to do that, that is heroic, especially when mass media is doing the exact opposite. He had some controversial opinions sure, but that doesn’t mean he's not worthy of mourning. In addition, this is an attack on free speech, not just Charlie Kirk - and in a sense he was martyred for us all to remember the thin thread we're walking in today's society, for we may all get shot in the neck for simply speaking, metaphorically as well.
If you're not up for debate then why reply at all?

aahhh of course, now the personal attacks begin.

this is why there's no point in continuing this convo. that's not a debate, that's you trying to demean me.

i never said i wasn't up for debate, i said i wasn't up for argument. your tone was aggressive from the start, and you've shown yourself now as someone who actually just wants to squash me, rather than debate.

my initial question about whether i was missing something wasn't disingenous, it was an honest one. but so far no-one has offered anything other than - oh he was actually really great, or, the news sources i'm reading are wrong (seemingly compared to the other ones that must be entirely correct).

'debating' people doesn't give you carte blanche to be rude. it just makes you rude, and your language becomes weaponised. that doesn't sound like someone who wants peace for all (unless that doesn't include me).

if you want a debate, then keep it civil.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. If you find it demeaning then don't throw stones in a glass house? You're pissing on someone's grave while being too sensitive to be criticised for it?
I've informed you of what you were missing, but you're being dismissing because you can't deal with being wrong.
He died defending freedom, is that not heroism to you? It's the objective definition of the word. Facts are facts - your feelings are not. You can't claim to want debate and to be exempt from criticism at the same time, what is this?
And yes, I want peace for you, as well as all the other people I disagree with.
I will never give you anything but words, and if you don't want them, don't engage.

it's amazing how often people here refer to 'facts', as if that somehow ends every debate. it's only your opinion that he died defending freedom. he died, that's the only fact here that can't be debated or considered.

I've asked an honest question about why he's so highly thought of here, and so far no-one has been able to say why.

How is he toxic? That's idiotic. He spoke nothing but common sense and they assassinated him for it you prick. Two kids and a wife.

Fuck guns, one love. He died living by his own sword.

There was a US school shoot up on the same day that only made local news whilst this reverberates across global media and probably for months to come. Something doesn't feel right...

I think Americans have become somewhat inured to school shootings. they're a fact of life there now (39 people killed or injured so far this year). political assassinations are still rare so I guess more 'newsworthy'.

some are saying the real shooter was near in the crowd, in white t shirt, with a smartphone 🔫.
which is silenced and can be aimed off the screen, you see it in the video, in one its pretty clear.
the patsy shot i imagine but was only used as cover.
a few were there all part of it, a decoy or two.
was highly organized, even a drone zoomed by at time.
our eyes witnessed something akin t0 911 when the towers, steel beams and all were turned to ash.
something wizard like.
also Charlie was more a civil rights person than a right wing activist imo.
a true gentle spirit, which is why we feel the pain from our Souls too.
take care of yourself my friend.❤️

such a gentle spirit, stirring up hatred for a living.

Watch his debates. You might learn something.

Stay strong my brothers and sisters ❤️

RIP Charlie, scary times we are living in my friend…..

Thanks I needed this reminder my friend. 💜

i have been in the mind of the source of all evil in this world, its machinelike, you can see, hear and touch the darkness, its reptilian in nature.
it wants our souls, we must understand we are wicked men at heart all of us, without the Grace of God.

rest in piss more like. un-christian hateful little piece of scum. proof you just have to claim you're a believer and people will accept it and back you uncritically.

Noticed from personal orders the Dr is slower at dispatching than some other vendors on here

I've had the opposite experience. NDD twice, great comms and always arrived promptly.
I'm sure your order will be fine and arrive soon, have faith in the doctor 😁

Ah man that's annoying. I've never used same day delivery but the 24 hour tracked always got to me within 24 hours 😁

I'd message em and explain your frustration, I'm sure they'd sort you out. I also wouldn't worry about it arriving, these guys have a solid track record, even at times when they're slow.

It's important to remember that vendors have lives too 😅

"Good guys? Bourgeois concept, but fine. Mustachioed figures near progress, not saints:

Garibaldi: Unified Italy. Weakened feudalism, aided bourgeois rise. Proletariat needed that step. Radical flair, stirred kings. 'Stache: defiance, but blind to class.

Villa: Shook Mexican landowners. Peasant power! Imperfect, agrarian focus, not socialist purity. 'Stache: peasant revolt.

Ho Chi Minh: National liberation, socialist ideals intertwined. Fought colonialism, capitalism. Established socialist state. 'Stache: unwavering resolve.

Flaws exist. Historical context limits. Progress occurred, intentions hazy. True 'good'? The proletariat! Collective struggle over facial hair. Read Capital, comrade! Revolution happens, mustaches incidental."

The great, late, and amazing James Randi

what about your homey freddie?

Sheist, how could I forget? Engels, despite his bourgeois origins, understood the historical necessity of proletarian revolution and dedicated his life and resources to its advancement. He was, in essence, a "class traitor" of the highest order, using his position to undermine the system that benefited him. His mustache, therefore, can be seen as a symbol of his rebellion against his own class, a mark of his commitment to the liberation of the working class. It was a well-groomed mustache, yes, but a revolutionary mustache nonetheless!

Trotsky, a man who fancies himself a paragon of revolutionary virtue, parades about with a mustache that is nothing short of an affront to proletarian aesthetics! This ridiculous facial hair, thick and unkempt, is a bourgeois affectation masquerading as a symbol of the working class’s struggle. It reeks of petty vanity and counter-revolutionary dandyism!

I'd have to go with MLK.