Charlie Kirk Assassination

[zqwerty]

Tyler Robinson's Roommate and 'Romantic Partner' Helped Turn Him In, Is 'Very Cooperative,' Says Gov.

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/tyler-robinson...05208.html

More info. Scroll down to 2nd article.

"Asked why he murdered the right-wing activist, Robinson allegedly replied "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out.""

[Lilith7]

Tyler Robinson's Roommate and 'Romantic Partner' Helped Turn Him In, Is 'Very Cooperative,' Says Gov.

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/tyler-robinson...05208.html

More info.  Scroll down to 2nd article.

"Asked why he murdered the right-wing activist, Robinson allegedly replied "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out.""

And they want the death penalty for pity's sake.

SO glad we don't live there.

[Agent_24]

SO glad we don't live there.

Don't rest on your laurels, there's plenty of nutjobs here like Eftpostle Tamaki and his mates who want nothing more than to import America's hate

[Lilith7]

SO glad we don't live there.

Don't rest on your laurels, there's plenty of nutjobs here like Eftpostle Tamaki and his mates who want nothing more than to import America's hate

Yes indeed, which reminds me, must watch the second John Campbell thingy. The McBishop is deluded, but also rather power happy & i don't much like their attitude to gay people. 

Or anything else, either...

[zqwerty]

God, apparently being perfect wants everyone to try and be like him, and so do his followers hence the rigid rules and condemnation of anything out of the ordinary behaviour.

[Lilith7]

God, apparently being perfect wants everyone to try and be like him, and so do his followers hence the rigid rules and condemnation of anything out of the ordinary behaviour.

Well, if there's a god then I suspect there might be a few people wanting a word or two with him/her/it/them...

[SueDonim]

His killing was not unexpected. His rhetoric served to put a huge target on his back and yesterday somebody took aim at it. 

With no suspect yet identified or apprehended it's difficult to judge what motives were actually involved but with the depth of political polarisation currently at play in the US possibilities are widespread. 

Perhaps a professional hit for political gain? It has taken the focus off of Epstein issue after all. 

A foreign actor is another aspect to consider. The likely aftermath of this may well be a destabilising influence on the US political landscape. 

Or it was just somebody with a high level of firearms skills that was fed up with the continual diatribe that was Charlie Kirk's MO.

A collection of his public statements...

It's pretty easy to find where the statements in this list are analysed and commented on in context. Mostly in the context of reporting or paraphrasing the statements of others and/or questioning what extremists were saying. Posting something like this, especially without showing its source, is fueling the fire big time and is totally unacceptable.

You say " His killing was not unexpected". Why on earth would it be expected? There has been a lot of criticism of the restriction of "free speech" from those who didn't like their heroes being stood down from trendy TV shows when their remarks overstepped the respect that was due to someone who had just been murdered. Yes, MURDERED. Simply because he was brave enough to question. If you want left-wing free speech, then you need to give the right an equal level of respect.

And "His rhetoric served to put a huge target on his back and yesterday somebody took aim at it". Really? His rhetoric was simply to question some of the extremism we are seeing. Yes, he was very religious and in so being had some attitudes and beliefs that sat outside what most of us would agree with, but his objective was debate. To question. To get people to start thinking for themselves. To question how stupid some of today's rhetoric and protest actually is. He wasn't promoting it. Just trying to get people to see sense.

Nonie of this is/was about right v. left, but about extremism v. centrism. I certainly disagreed with some of the comments he did make and what his basic beliefs were, especially on the religious front, but he had every right to say to what he said, and DID NOT DESERVE TO DIE for it.

---

Well of course, but right-wingers like heisenberg can never admit they're wrong, so they have to fall back on any tenuous excuse they can possibly find (or just fabricate) to justify why it's someone else's fault.

right wingers......sure 

i have posted this before and was completely honest

Great to see that you are so well balanced. I did a different one of those surveys a while ago and came out slightly left, which surprised me. But slightly "anything" is fine. It's those in the far corners that are the problem and are unable to see the tipping of the scales.

[Agent_24]

If you want left-wing free speech, then you need to give the right an equal level of respect.

And "His rhetoric served to put a huge target on his back and yesterday somebody took aim at it". Really? His rhetoric was simply to question some of the extremism we are seeing.

There's free speech, and then there's hate speech.
He was (part of) the extremism.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, especially if all you do is spew hate.

[SueDonim]

Many yuears ago I came across a very old saying:"And it harm none, do what ye will" which sems to cover just about everything.

If we could just manage it...

So you are a Libertarian after all. Yet you hate anything the ACT party want to do to move us in that direction.

---

If you want left-wing free speech, then you need to give the right an equal level of respect.

And "His rhetoric served to put a huge target on his back and yesterday somebody took aim at it". Really? His rhetoric was simply to question some of the extremism we are seeing.

There's free speech, and then there's hate speech.
He was (part of) the extremism.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, especially if all you do is spew hate.

But that's the whole point. He wasn't spewing hate. He was questioning, and trying to get others to think and question. His extremism was his fundamental religion, which isn't extreme in the US. People are entitled to their beliefs no matter how idiotic they are. Kirk was not spewing hate. He was trying to get others to see that that was what they were doing.

[Lilith7]

Many yuears ago I came across a very old saying:"And it harm none, do what ye will" which sems to cover just about everything.

If we could just manage it...

So you are a Libertarian after all. Yet you hate anything the ACT party want to do to move us in that direction.

---

There's free speech, and then there's hate speech.
He was (part of) the extremism.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, especially if all you do is spew hate.

But that's the whole point. He wasn't spewing hate. He was questioning, and trying to get others to think and question. His extremism was his fundamental religion, which isn't extreme in the US. People are entitled to their beliefs no matter how idiotic they are. Kirk was not spewing hate. He was trying to get others to see that that was what they were doing.

Oh, really? NO very definitely not a libertarian. 

And to be as polite as possible, in my view the ACT party intend to do massive damage to this country if given free rein. They're Neo Liberal to the core & that is very much a greed based system which seems hell bent on returning the world to a kind of feudalism, where the poor struggle to even find enough to eat in order to remain alive while the wealthy - having become wealthy by  exploiting the poor - live the life of Riley.
These are not good people.

[Agent_24]

But that's the whole point. He wasn't spewing hate. He was questioning, and trying to get others to think and question. His extremism was his fundamental religion, which isn't extreme in the US. People are entitled to their beliefs no matter how idiotic they are. Kirk was not spewing hate. He was trying to get others to see that that was what they were doing.

He was very much spewing hate, if you think he wasn't then you're either incredibly naive or you agree with him and don't see his disgusting comments as hate, in which case, you're just as awful as he was.

[Lilith7]

Many yuears ago I came across a very old saying:"And it harm none, do what ye will" which sems to cover just about everything.

If we could just manage it...

So you are a Libertarian after all. Yet you hate anything the ACT party want to do to move us in that direction.

---

There's free speech, and then there's hate speech.
He was (part of) the extremism.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, especially if all you do is spew hate.

But that's the whole point. He wasn't spewing hate. He was questioning, and trying to get others to think and question. His extremism was his fundamental religion, which isn't extreme in the US. People are entitled to their beliefs no matter how idiotic they are. Kirk was not spewing hate. He was trying to get others to see that that was what they were doing.

Not altogether right to claim that he wasn't 'spewing hate'. He had some fairly extreme right wing views.
He wanted parents & students to 'report professors suspected of embracing gender ideology' & wanted to 'unite the church around primary doctrine' & remove wokeism from the American pulpit', he was also very keen on gun rights, wanting yet more guns as a means of ending gun violence (!) & believed 'the civil rights act was a destructive mistake & blamed Martin Luther King.
He seems also to have been an anti semite. And didn't believe in climate change.

Not someone full of love towards his fellow humans


https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/us/ch...imate.html

[zqwerty]

Hopefully this behaviour will continue, whenever things get bad and evil is starting to takeover throughout the land a Robin Hood will turn up and cleanse the situation, long may this continue and there is still more work to be done to purge the remaining evil.

"Take from the rich and give to the poor".