Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted

Wonder if Trey Parker and Matt Stone are quickly adjusting some storylines for the episode they apparently didn't finish before last night's scheduled airdate.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, C-Man said:

Wonder if Trey Parker and Matt Stone are quickly adjusting some storylines for the episode they apparently didn't finish before last night's scheduled airdate.

I really hope that's what happened.

Posted
2 hours ago, Captainant said:

He sent EIGHTY busses of rioters to the Capital on January 6th that went on to interrupt the peaceful transition of power and try to hang the Vice President. 

Since I've seen this cited multiple times on this site, I wanted to verify it in some way.  Thanks ChatGPT.

 

Quote

🔍 Key Excerpt

From the Jan. 6 Select Committee deposition of Charlie Kirk:

“Now you were able, through Turning Point, to provide these funds because of a donation from Ms. Fancelli, correct?”
“I’m invoking my Fifth Amendment right.” GovInfo

“Sorted through previous documents … you can see $250,000 for Turning Point Action busing and event promotion … Did Turning Point create Telegram chats for each bus group that traveled to D.C. for January 6th?”
“I’m invoking my Fifth Amendment right.” GovInfo

Also:

“I understand that Turning Point helped to coordinate bus transportation to the January 6th event. Who from Turning Point was responsible at a leadership level for coordinating that bus transportation to Washington, D.C., for that day?”
“I am invoking my Fifth Amendment right.” GovInfo


🧾 Summary

  • In the transcript, the committee shows emails and budget items that reference $250,000 for Turning Point Action for busing and promotion. GovInfo

  • Kirk is asked a series of questions about how many buses his organization paid for, who organized them, etc. In all those questions, he invokes his Fifth Amendment protection. GovInfo

  • One of the key pieces of evidence is a tweet (later deleted) in which Kirk said TPUSA and Students for Trump were “sending 80+ buses full of patriots to D.C. to fight for this President.”

 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Since I've seen this cited multiple times on this site, I wanted to verify it in some way.  Thanks ChatGPT.

 

 

So you're telling me that, after all the Soros talk, it's MAGA that has been bussing in folks to their rallies????

kristen-wiig-no-waih.gif

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

You'd actually be surprised. "Everyone in jail is innocent" is not an axiom for no reason. But even if it's just 1%, you are right. 

Didn't do it!  Lawyer fucked me!

Posted
3 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

All he wanted was to live in a World where people are color blind and judged by their actions and content of their character…. and also pilots, congresswomen, judges, and First ladies are only white.  Modern day MLK, IMO.

At least people in the ‘60s admitted they thought others were inferior.  You lie to yourself just to be able to sleep at night.

You either lack the ability to process a conversation and understand context or have not spent any time at all listening to the man other than 2-3 sentences that fit your desired narrative. His whole argument, which is substantiated over and over again in public recorded settings, is that we shouldn't be seeing race when we evaluate human beings. Policies in place that require X% of people being a certain race/gender etc. run counter to that and results in people considering, was this the best person for the job, or were they placed there because of a forced metric.  That is not helpful to or productive for anybody and its wild to me that you can't see the difference between opening doors for people and guaranteeing equal results.  Charlie wanted to be able to trust that the "pilot", black or white, was the best pilot for the job.   Or you can just parrot a complete fabrication of what he actually said and convince yourself that he said black people bad. You do you. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

You either lack the ability to process a conversation and understand context or have not spent any time at all listening to the man other than 2-3 sentences that fit your desired narrative. His whole argument, which is substantiated over and over again in public recorded settings, is that we shouldn't be seeing race when we evaluate human beings. Policies in place that require X% of people being a certain race/gender etc. run counter to that and results in people considering, was this the best person for the job, or were they placed there because of a forced metric.  That is not helpful to or productive for anybody and its wild to me that you can't see the difference between opening doors for people and guaranteeing equal results.  Charlie wanted to be able to trust that the "pilot", black or white, was the best pilot for the job.   Or you can just parrot a complete fabrication of what he actually said and convince yourself that he said black people bad. You do you. 

@Enchubben...I guess I don't "understand context" here, right?

546092052_10172193258380253_360041806777

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Haha 4
Posted
10 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

You either lack the ability to process a conversation and understand context or have not spent any time at all listening to the man other than 2-3 sentences that fit your desired narrative. His whole argument, which is substantiated over and over again in public recorded settings, is that we shouldn't be seeing race when we evaluate human beings. Policies in place that require X% of people being a certain race/gender etc. run counter to that and results in people considering, was this the best person for the job, or were they placed there because of a forced metric.  That is not helpful to or productive for anybody and its wild to me that you can't see the difference between opening doors for people and guaranteeing equal results.  Charlie wanted to be able to trust that the "pilot", black or white, was the best pilot for the job.   Or you can just parrot a complete fabrication of what he actually said and convince yourself that he said black people bad. You do you. 

Here's some more for you, from the main voice pushing great replacement theory:

 

If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022

Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023

If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024

If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 13 July 2023

Posted
6 hours ago, mdmost said:

There are a lot of kids who are book smart but not socially mature or good with decision making. They lack "street smarts" since they are so online. Covid screwed up a lot of kids and set them back even further. Then they stay online all the time and makes them even more socially immature. 

As @SpiralOut is trying to point out, if this kid was dumb enough to text everything out in text he would surely be dumb enough to post something in one of the discords he was a member of. Yet nothing. Crickets. 4 years prior he was asked who was winning the election and he answered. Didn't give any opinion. Didn't say who he voted for. Nothing. Anywhere about political views or any dislike of a public figure. All the sudden, the kid who has been super quiet about killing Kirk just gives up every single piece of info all in one single text conversation despite years of silence. Not buying it. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Here's some more for you, from the main voice pushing great replacement theory:

 

If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022

Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023

If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024

If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 13 July 2023

Meh, those are all out of context.  He's a really good guy that loves jeebus!

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

You either lack the ability to process a conversation and understand context or have not spent any time at all listening to the man other than 2-3 sentences that fit your desired narrative. His whole argument, which is substantiated over and over again in public recorded settings, is that we shouldn't be seeing race when we evaluate human beings. Policies in place that require X% of people being a certain race/gender etc. run counter to that and results in people considering, was this the best person for the job, or were they placed there because of a forced metric.  That is not helpful to or productive for anybody and its wild to me that you can't see the difference between opening doors for people and guaranteeing equal results.  Charlie wanted to be able to trust that the "pilot", black or white, was the best pilot for the job.   Or you can just parrot a complete fabrication of what he actually said and convince yourself that he said black people bad. You do you. 

oh-fuck-off-fuck.gif

  • Haha 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

As @SpiralOut is trying to point out, if this kid was dumb enough to text everything out in text he would surely be dumb enough to post something in one of the discords he was a member of. Yet nothing. Crickets.

From the discord chats: 

The purported screenshot of Tyler Robinson's message confessing to his crime.

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

As @SpiralOut is trying to point out, if this kid was dumb enough to text everything out in text he would surely be dumb enough to post something in one of the discords he was a member of. Yet nothing. Crickets. 4 years prior he was asked who was winning the election and he answered. Didn't give any opinion. Didn't say who he voted for. Nothing. Anywhere about political views or any dislike of a public figure. All the sudden, the kid who has been super quiet about killing Kirk just gives up every single piece of info all in one single text conversation despite years of silence. Not buying it. 

he did post to the discord group.

eta: anastasis posted it above.

Edited by sidis
Posted
23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

@Enchubben...I guess I don't "understand context" here, right?

546092052_10172193258380253_360041806777

He was speaking in a broader discussion about border security, enforcement, and what force might be used. That includes non-lethal force (rubber bullets, tear gas), escalation to lethal force, etc.  So yes, you still missed the context and grabbed one sentence from a much longer discussion on border security. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
Just now, Enchubben said:

He was speaking in a broader discussion about border security, enforcement, and what force might be used. That includes non-lethal force (rubber bullets, tear gas), escalation to lethal force, etc.  So yes, you still missed the context and grabbed one sentence from a much longer discussion on border security. 

Yep.  I read the full context of his discussion.  The end-point being, use violence, all the way up to lethal force.  Against -- his word -- "foreigners."  Doesn't matter who they are, why they are there, anything.  Child fleeing violence?  Whip 'em.

There's literally nothing that MAGAs won't excuse, because the truth is, THEY LIKE IT.  I'm glad that you are so foolishly honest about your beliefs.  Really pulls back the curtain on how y'all think and about your purported "Christianity."

I remember well, in the Gospel of Trump, how Jesus said "but when the foreigner shows up, start with non-lethal force (rubber bullets, tear gas), and escalate to lethal force.  It's absolutely cool if you whip the foreigner."  Yep, I'm looking for a church where we can say that in some sort of prayer of affirmation.  Sad thing is, I'm sure I could find quite a few.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
On 9/16/2025 at 7:42 AM, G650 said:

Dude, what else could "Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot." possibly mean.

 

Still waiting

 

7 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

He was speaking in a broader discussion about border security, enforcement, and what force might be used. That includes non-lethal force (rubber bullets, tear gas), escalation to lethal force, etc.  So yes, you still missed the context and grabbed one sentence from a much longer discussion on border security. 

 

It's wild that you think the context improves what he is saying.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, bluto said:

That’s not even true, well over half the country id’s as Christian. 

Same can be said about self-identifying as a racist or fascist.

Posted
2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Their inaction is complicit in the degradation. Senior democratic leadership and party leadership have failed this country just as hard as republicans. 

So Dem inaction is congruent to government overthrow? Interesting.

I'd say private citizen inaction in the face of tyranny while whining that the Dems aren't saving them just about defines a pussy. It also defines a person who doesn't get the paradigm shift and thinks it's still the good old days of GOP-Dem political struggle. There are rules in the political contention of a republic. See if you can point any out to me today.

Posted
57 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Meh, those are all out of context.  He's a really good guy that loves jeebus!

There are many quotes to that effect. Same is true of dear leader.



×
×
  • Create New...