Jump to content

Charlie Kirk assassinated at an event in Utah (by a 22 YO groyper)


Recommended Posts

Posted
52 minutes ago, mdmost said:

It is. I'm sure free speech guy will make sure to pressure Texas Tech to bring back the girl who was just expelled for saying horrible shit at a Charlie Kirk vigil on Tech's campus in their "Free Speech Zone". 

 

This is from the election prediction guy whosnis promoting a new book on conservatism, but he did his research well. Conservatism is a complete lie. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

How about the VP calling for government funded thought squads who will go around and seek out inappropriate speech, from one side of the political spectrum only.  

All one has to do to show the rank hypocrisy of the governor and Tech’s Regents chair is listen to thousands of Tech students substitute their fight songs original words with the following. (I double checked for accuracy)

We will hit ‘em. We will wreck ‘em. We will fucking kick your ass

The 18 year old was expelled for less. I hope this negatively impacts the inroads they’ve made in appealing to black athletes and exposes Campbell for the bigoted billionaire he really is.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
40 minutes ago, Zeus said:

It’s definitely endorsing violence. But I’m not a lawyer or into the semantics, just telling you why a university would not to allow a student to do that. It wasn’t my opinion on what they should do. 

It’s not illegal speech like specific calls to violence but it’s so close to that line for the university to ignore it would be unwise.  I’m sure their legal team reviewed that interaction and said no thanks. 

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and so plainly betray that you don't give a flying fuck about freedom of speech.

Do you realize how stupid you sound?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

Her speech was kinda sorta almost illegal!  Close enough!

im sure tech expells every student that says mean things. And also every student that gets charged with misdemeanor assault, for anyone who wishes to advance that theory for the Lubbock criminal justice system’s fine work. 

Posted
43 minutes ago, Foosters said:

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and so plainly betray that you don't give a flying fuck about freedom of speech.

Do you realize how stupid you sound?

John Candy No GIF by Laff

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hermanator said:

This is from the election prediction guy whosnis promoting a new book on conservatism, but he did his research well. Conservatism is a complete lie. 

 

Really enjoyed this distillation of how full of shit these people have always been. 

Posted
4 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You are a fucking idiot. Post less.

LOL. This is such a perfect example. We don’t like your opinion, so shut up fascist!

Posted
7 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

Nm

Go ahead and share your thoughts totally new poster who just joined yesterday and has opinions on this topic.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

LOL. This is such a perfect example. We don’t like your opinion, so shut up fascist!

No you’re objectively a liar so fuck off

13 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

Nm

Wat up GRU

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

LOL. This is such a perfect example. We don’t like your opinion, so shut up fascist!

Penelope's going to bring government's law enforcement to compel "post less"! Excellent point!

Edited by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Above, I dissected his quote about black airline pilots, which, taken by itself, is disgusting.

But his "broader" argument is that affirmative action, specifically preferences, has CREATED that doubt by creating a perception that less-talented minorities get jobs in place of more-qualified whites.  That's a highly debatable proposition and ignores the very real possibility that without preferences, and "DEI" in the military, there'd be no perception because there would be no black airline pilots.

But that's sophistry covering the essential racism of the basic position, that a dirty nagger can't possibly be an airline pilot.

As revealed pretty clearly here:

 

You and I simply disagree on what he’s saying. I listen to that and I hear him specifically referring to those people he’s listed and potentially others that are DEI specific hires. Not all, or most, or many black women as you seem to be implying.  You want to hear or see hate from him, because you’ve been conditioned to dislike him and his opinions. I don’t think your interpretation of this is accurate or what he intended.

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

You and I simply disagree on what he’s saying. I listen to that and I hear him specifically referring to those people he’s listed and potentially others that are DEI specific hires. Not all, or most, or many black women as you seem to be implying.  You want to hear or see hate from him, because you’ve been conditioned to dislike him and his opinions. I don’t think your interpretation of this is accurate or what he intended.

What does DEI mean to you?

Posted
3 hours ago, mchookem said:

also

Screenshot_20250915_170255_Chrome.thumb.jpg.a9d26511be443cf2e6ae96c53a5afb65.jpg

so much for facts bearing bullshit out 🙄

I think the statement went straight over your head. Yes intraracial murder is more common than interracial murders, and by a large margin. When considering black on white or white on black murders, it skews heavily towards black on white. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Covri said:

Go ahead and share your thoughts totally new poster who just joined yesterday and has opinions on this topic.

Honest mistake. 

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

No you’re objectively a liar so fuck off

Wat up GRU

Not a Republican, not a retread, I don’t want trouble. Fuck ou. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

What does DEI mean to you?

Honestly it’s so damn all over the place and still evolving, so I’m not sure what the hell it means anymore.  In the context of my statements I consider a DEI hire to be someone who was given a job/promotion etc. solely, or in part because of an alignment with an underrepresented class (gender, color, orientation etc) at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile. 

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
12 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

You and I simply disagree on what he’s saying. I listen to that and I hear him specifically referring to those people he’s listed and potentially others that are DEI specific hires. Not all, or most, or many black women as you seem to be implying.  You want to hear or see hate from him, because you’ve been conditioned to dislike him and his opinions. I don’t think your interpretation of this is accurate or what he intended.

Have you ever heard him criticize the hiring or placement of unqualified white men?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

Honestly it’s so damn all over the place and still evolving, so I’m not sure what the hell it means anymore.  In the context of my statements I consider a DEI hire to be someone who was given a job/promotion etc. solely, or in part because of an alignment with an underrepresented class (gender, color, orientation etc) at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile. 

Gotcha. That’s unfortunate you feel that way. I don’t think it happens that way very often, or at least enough to make a big difference. I’m happy to compete with anyone in the job market. It’s up to me to prove my credentials and worthiness of a position. And in my experience in the corporate world, it’s not what you know anyway, it’s who you know. 

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Honestly it’s so damn all over the place and still evolving

you dumb fucking rube! who the fuck do you think is responsible for this nebulous meaning that you can't put your finger on?

Edited by Gourmand
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Honestly it’s so damn all over the place and still evolving, so I’m not sure what the hell it means anymore.  In the context of my statements I consider a DEI hire to be someone who was given a job/promotion etc. solely, or in part because of an alignment with an underrepresented class (gender, color, orientation etc) at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile. 

I’ve been involved with a lot of DEI hiring processes and the best candidate at the end gets the job. I’ve seen it be white men, white women, people of color. The only thing that changes in a proper DEI process is at the outset, at the beginning, you make sure a diverse group is your starting sample set. The reality is though, there are more mediocre white men promoted in this country than there are excellent people of color, trans people, etc. DEI done correctly is exactly what we need in every organization and institution to ensure the best qualified candidate is chosen. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Honestly it’s so damn all over the place and still evolving, so I’m not sure what the hell it means anymore.  In the context of my statements I consider a DEI hire to be someone who was given a job/promotion etc. solely, or in part because of an alignment with an underrepresented class (gender, color, orientation etc) at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile. 

What about someone who is given a job/promotion in part because of alignment with an overrepresented class at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Honestly it’s so damn all over the place and still evolving, so I’m not sure what the hell it means anymore.  In the context of my statements I consider a DEI hire to be someone who was given a job/promotion etc. solely, or in part because of an alignment with an underrepresented class (gender, color, orientation etc) at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile. 

Given what info has been posted in this very thread, your reading comprehension is poor. Also, your bias was made clear when you dismissed Justice Jackson as someone lacking a superior intellect. No more negs from me, as I won’t be bothered by your thoughts. Ciao, boofus,

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Honestly it’s so damn all over the place and still evolving, so I’m not sure what the hell it means anymore.  In the context of my statements I consider a DEI hire to be someone who was given a job/promotion etc. solely, or in part because of an alignment with an underrepresented class (gender, color, orientation etc) at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile. 

That’s not what it is so you’re either a moron or liar. Of course there is the possibility you are both. 
 

go fuck yourself

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
On 9/14/2025 at 9:43 PM, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

What are the odds that the politician who just said he "couldn't care less" about right-wing extremist violence will be the first nationally prominent politician to be calling people nazis/fascists? Because it's in his personal interests to do so at the expense of America?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-johnson-house-speaker-charlie-kirk-assassination-turning-point-face-the-nation-09-14-2025/

If I was a betting man, I'd give it a week.

 

One whole day later. Almost there, but I think the president broadcasting "do whatever the hell you want" is easily more inflammatory than his usual routine of calling libs "fascists" on Truth Social, not that he'll likely get back around to doing that too. President America First tamping down the flames and bringing America back together.

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Like this fuckstck?

 

Edited by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Posted
9 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

I consider a DEI hire to be someone who was given a job/promotion etc. solely, or in part because of an alignment with an underrepresented class (gender, color, orientation etc) at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile. 

You racist assholes have such an unquittable hate-on for affirmative action that you needed to find something else to take its place even though that thing you're obsessed with is not a stand-in for affirmaitve action.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I find it very, very interesting that while Trump/Vance/Miller/Bondi and everyone else in the Trump administration is pushing the "leftist" killer angle, Charlie Kirk's good friend is completely focused on Bibi and Israel being involved. 

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Honestly it’s so damn all over the place and still evolving, so I’m not sure what the hell it means anymore.  In the context of my statements I consider a DEI hire to be someone who was given a job/promotion etc. solely, or in part because of an alignment with an underrepresented class (gender, color, orientation etc) at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile. 

Very wrong and/or misinformed. What you describe isn’t equitable, which is the E in the acronym.   See below for the correct answer. 

14 minutes ago, troph said:

I’ve been involved with a lot of DEI hiring processes and the best candidate at the end gets the job. I’ve seen it be white men, white women, people of color. The only thing that changes in a proper DEI process is at the outset, at the beginning, you make sure a diverse group is your starting sample set. The reality is though, there are more mediocre white men promoted in this country than there are excellent people of color, trans people, etc. DEI done correctly is exactly what we need in every organization and institution to ensure the best qualified candidate is chosen. 

It is making sure you have a diverse candidate pool because that leads to better candidates which leads to better hires. It is the opposite of deciding that black women lack the brainpower for a job so don’t consider them. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Very wrong and/or misinformed. What you describe isn’t equitable, which is the E in the acronym.   See below for the correct answer. 

It is making sure you have a diverse candidate pool because that leads to better candidates which leads to better hires. It is the opposite of deciding that black women lack the brainpower for a job so don’t consider them. 

The best, most succinct way I could describe it from the times I've been involved is active outreach to diversify the talent pool.

Posted
1 minute ago, bolverk said:

The best, most succinct way I could describe it from the times I've been involved is active outreach to diversify the talent pool.

There’s also the internal portion where you should try to build teams or seek input from a diverse group, since they may have differing perspectives because of differing backgrounds. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

There’s also the internal portion where you should try to build teams or seek input from a diverse group, since they may have differing perspectives because of differing backgrounds. 

💯 

Edited by scramblyn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

We're all going to get accurate information on the killer from the administration run by a convicted scam artist that is currently blocking public disclosure of the Epstein files. Normally that would be something done covertly, but thanks to their enabling supporters, they don't have to expend any energy on that and can do it in broad daylight. 

Not that it even matters, because that same administration has unapologetically said that they "couldn't care less" about right-wing wing extremist violence. Again, something that should be said covertly, but when you have enablers who will applaud or excuse anything, there's no point in hiding it. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

There’s also the internal portion where you should try to build teams or seek input from a diverse group, since they may have differing perspectives because of differing backgrounds. 

Absolutely. My description includes that aspect as well.

Posted (edited)

Candace Owens isn't the only right wing nut running with this vague Israel theory regarding Charlie Kirk. 

Meanwhile Fuentes is focusing on Israel...

and Trump. 

 

Kinda weird that they are not on the same page with the Trump administration, right? That these people don't seem to be buying the "leftist" killer angle at all? 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

We're all going to get accurate information on the killer from the administration run by a convicted scam artist that is currently blocking public disclosure of the Epstein files. Normally that would be something done covertly, but thanks to their enabling supporters, they don't have to expend any energy on that and can do it in broad daylight. 

Not that it even matters, because that same administration has unapologetically said that they "couldn't care less" about right-wing wing extremist violence. Again, something that should be said covertly, but when you have enablers who will applaud or excuse anything, there's no point in hiding it. 

Yeah, that's the thing. Everything is out in the open, on full display, for everyone to see.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

There’s also the internal portion where you should try to build teams or seek input from a diverse group, since they may have differing perspectives because of differing backgrounds. 

How do you think this trans woman made the hiring team? And I dare any one of you mother fuckers claim I’m not qualified. The amount of opportunity I’ve lost from my little gender stunt would gobsmack everyone of you. There’s nothing mediocre about this ho. 



×
×
  • Create New...