Robert Wilson said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

beardoc said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Doubthttps://nypost.com/2025/09/15/us-news/texas-tech-student-arrested-after-hurling-vile-comments-at-charlie-kirk-mourners-f-k-yall-homie-dead/

A Texas Tech student was arrested after she was filmed mocking Charlie Kirk's assassination and harassing mourners at a vigil for the conservative influencer.

Camryn Giselle Booker, 18, was recorded jumping around and yelling at fellow students paying tribute to Kirk, "Fk y'all homie dead, he got shot in the head."

🚨 UPDATE: It's being reported that this demon who danced on Charlie Kirk's grave has been expelled from Texas Tech. She said: "f-ck y'all, yo homie d*ad!" They're finding out.pic.twitter.com/Pj7YUo3MOE

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 14, 2025

---

It's a sad case that they all want to be AOC or Jasmine Crockett... Could you imagine an HR person looking at that when she goes into the workforce?

---

Everyone did something cringe worthy when I was in college.

Thankfully cameras were not everywhere to record them.

Hopefully the fat gal was not expelled.

---

Doubtful any of you celebrated someone getting murdered

---

Honestly I knew of some frat guys who did far worse.

And none of them got arrested.

Texas Tech shouldn't go full aggie.

At most put the fat gal on probation.

No way should she be expelled

---

and yet....

Governor Abbott responds to video of Texas Tech student at on-campus memorial of Charlie Kirk

---

What 'assault' ? For mouthing off ? Who hasn't ever done that ?

Fat gal has a huge payday coming her way.

Bet she has already got a line of attorneys begging to represent her for a percentage.

And Abbott just made a Trump like blunder.

---

Apparently she was hitting people.

---

Texas Tech better have one hell of a lot more evidence than 'apparently'.

Or fat gal is going to see a big check.

---

You need to go study up on assault. Then study up on sovereign immunity.

---

Attorneys and bad PR are expensive.

---

They're really not that expensive. Tech will have some pretty good insurance defense litigators that won't cost a fortune, and they will probably get out on a motion to dismiss.

Any bad pub from that will cost them a lot less than keeping her around.

I'm not saying that big old gal can't find her a lawyer.
She will but it won't be a good one who cares about making money.

All of that ignores the basic, principled point that people who believe in murder based on political viewpoint should not be in an educational setting.

---

It will make for a intereting video clip for any Republican running for office. This whole week, from the lady murdered on the train in Charlottesville to the Kirk assassination to the aftermath is either PR company's gold mine or worst nightmare.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

"The right" just watched one of their own, a young, articulate and incredibly respectful man who championed their cause in the lion's den of conservative-hating academia, get brutally murdered for having many views that they share and respectfully debating those views. You think they need an "excuse to escalate?" What planet are you living on?

---

I'm living on a planet (and reading in a forum) where Republicans talk about civil war, crushing political opposition out of existence, and putting their enemies underground. Most people don't consider that normal.

---

And here are some of your neighbors on said planet. Welcome home.

They/them are terrorists pic.twitter.com/xcmXWumw3K

— Just A Dude (@JustADudeAZ) September 15, 2025

Osodecentx said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Doubthttps://nypost.com/2025/09/15/us-news/texas-tech-student-arrested-after-hurling-vile-comments-at-charlie-kirk-mourners-f-k-yall-homie-dead/

A Texas Tech student was arrested after she was filmed mocking Charlie Kirk's assassination and harassing mourners at a vigil for the conservative influencer.

Camryn Giselle Booker, 18, was recorded jumping around and yelling at fellow students paying tribute to Kirk, "Fk y'all homie dead, he got shot in the head."

🚨 UPDATE: It's being reported that this demon who danced on Charlie Kirk's grave has been expelled from Texas Tech. She said: "f-ck y'all, yo homie d*ad!" They're finding out.pic.twitter.com/Pj7YUo3MOE

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 14, 2025

---

It's a sad case that they all want to be AOC or Jasmine Crockett... Could you imagine an HR person looking at that when she goes into the workforce?

---

Everyone did something cringe worthy when I was in college.

Thankfully cameras were not everywhere to record them.

Hopefully the fat gal was not expelled.

---

Doubtful any of you celebrated someone getting murdered

---

Osama bin Laden

---

define murder.

Assassin said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://nypost.com/2025/09/15/us-news/texas-tech-student-arrested-after-hurling-vile-comments-at-charlie-kirk-mourners-f-k-yall-homie-dead/

A Texas Tech student was arrested after she was filmed mocking Charlie Kirk's assassination and harassing mourners at a vigil for the conservative influencer.

Camryn Giselle Booker, 18, was recorded jumping around and yelling at fellow students paying tribute to Kirk, "Fk y'all homie dead, he got shot in the head."

🚨 UPDATE: It's being reported that this demon who danced on Charlie Kirk's grave has been expelled from Texas Tech. She said: "f-ck y'all, yo homie d*ad!" They're finding out.pic.twitter.com/Pj7YUo3MOE

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 14, 2025

---

It's a sad case that they all want to be AOC or Jasmine Crockett... Could you imagine an HR person looking at that when she goes into the workforce?

---

Pizza Hut won't care.

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Link:

Contact the Dean and demand corrective action pic.twitter.com/0U9luFv1nG

— Paul Reardon (@PaulJReardon013) September 11, 2025

---

Now we're doxing?

---

All of the information provided is public information. He freely posted it just like he freely posted his evil thoughts. He has made no public apology and has only tried to escape accountability. Let's not forget, he celebrated the death of Charlie. This collective attitude of his and others fostered an environment where it was deemed acceptable to kill a law abiding citizen on public property for simply exercising his Constitutional freedom of speech. Rights that had already been paid for with blood by others.

A better question is why would you want to protect terrorists and terrorist enablers who attack our very democracy and way of life? Why doesn't the public deserve to know who they are to protect themselves and their families? Why are you prioritizing the rights of an unbeliever who did a terrible thing over a good Christian man who was martyred because of this very type of demonization?

---

School shooters attack our democracy and way of life too. Just ask the parents of Sandy Hook or the countless other shootings in our country.

---

Didn't Democrats vote no to police in schools? Thought I read something recently.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

"The right" just watched one of their own, a young, articulate and incredibly respectful man who championed their cause in the lion's den of conservative-hating academia, get brutally murdered for having many views that they share and respectfully debating those views. You think they need an "excuse to escalate?" What planet are you living on?

---

I'm living on a planet (and reading in a forum) where Republicans talk about civil war, crushing political opposition out of existence, and putting their enemies underground. Most people don't consider that normal.

---

And here are some of your neighbors on said planet. Welcome home.

They/them are terrorists pic.twitter.com/xcmXWumw3K

— Just A Dude (@JustADudeAZ) September 15, 2025

---

Thanks for that, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm saying there is dangerous extremism on both sides. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

"The right" just watched one of their own, a young, articulate and incredibly respectful man who championed their cause in the lion's den of conservative-hating academia, get brutally murdered for having many views that they share and respectfully debating those views. You think they need an "excuse to escalate?" What planet are you living on?

---

I'm living on a planet (and reading in a forum) where Republicans talk about civil war, crushing political opposition out of existence, and putting their enemies underground. Most people don't consider that normal.

---

And here are some of your neighbors on said planet. Welcome home.

They/them are terrorists pic.twitter.com/xcmXWumw3K

— Just A Dude (@JustADudeAZ) September 15, 2025

---

Thanks for that, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm saying there is dangerous extremism on both sides. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

---

The reason the idea that “both sides” commit political violence is so offensive is not only that it’s false; it’s that it reassigns to the Right to half the guilt of a crime committed against them, while not one Democrat has apologized for the rhetoric they shared with the killer pic.twitter.com/I5DdaRqrB3

— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 16, 2025

Shock poll: 28-percent of Democrats think America 'better off' if Trump assassinated

Interesting. So nothing has been done about this grad student?

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

"The right" just watched one of their own, a young, articulate and incredibly respectful man who championed their cause in the lion's den of conservative-hating academia, get brutally murdered for having many views that they share and respectfully debating those views. You think they need an "excuse to escalate?" What planet are you living on?

---

I'm living on a planet (and reading in a forum) where Republicans talk about civil war, crushing political opposition out of existence, and putting their enemies underground. Most people don't consider that normal.

---

And here are some of your neighbors on said planet. Welcome home.

They/them are terrorists pic.twitter.com/xcmXWumw3K

— Just A Dude (@JustADudeAZ) September 15, 2025

---

Thanks for that, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm saying there is dangerous extremism on both sides. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

---

I'm absolutely agreeing with you. There's violence on both side.

Now will you agree with me that Kevin Steele's
1-31 Bears were just like the rest of the Big 12 teams? They all had Big 12 victories you know.

You're such a clown now. What the heck happened to you?

Hey Sam, a post all about you.

pic.twitter.com/9JhBDXwQ2o

— Danny's twit (@JustakidonaSt) September 15, 2025

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

Ah, denial...thanks for clarifying.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

MTG said we are going to use the courts to prosecute and hang traitors? Well that's JUST LIKE cheering on assassinations... if you don't care about due process.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

MTG said we are going to use the courts to prosecute and hang traitors? Well that's JUST LIKE cheering on assassinations... if you don't care about due process.

---

Exactly...and we know how much the Trump administration cares about it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

MTG said we are going to use the courts to prosecute and hang traitors? Well that's JUST LIKE cheering on assassinations... if you don't care about due process.

---

Exactly...and we know how much the Trump administration cares about it.

---

Well, the person you're specifically crying about mentioned due process. Funny you're afraid of putting those criminals through trial. What a shock.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

MTG said we are going to use the courts to prosecute and hang traitors? Well that's JUST LIKE cheering on assassinations... if you don't care about due process.

---

Exactly...and we know how much the Trump administration cares about it.

---

Well, the person you're specifically crying about mentioned due process. Funny you're afraid of putting those criminals through trial. What a shock.

---

She also liked the idea that a bullet would be quicker.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

MTG said we are going to use the courts to prosecute and hang traitors? Well that's JUST LIKE cheering on assassinations... if you don't care about due process.

---

Exactly...and we know how much the Trump administration cares about it.

---

Well, the person you're specifically crying about mentioned due process. Funny you're afraid of putting those criminals through trial. What a shock.

---

She also liked the idea that a bullet would be quicker.

---

Republicans get convicted by posts they might have liked, Democrats get a pass for the words the speak and write themselves. Got it. Good talk. Thanks for participating.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

MTG said we are going to use the courts to prosecute and hang traitors? Well that's JUST LIKE cheering on assassinations... if you don't care about due process.

---

Exactly...and we know how much the Trump administration cares about it.

---

Well, the person you're specifically crying about mentioned due process. Funny you're afraid of putting those criminals through trial. What a shock.

---

She also liked the idea that a bullet would be quicker.

---

Republicans get convicted by posts they might have liked, Democrats get a pass for the words the speak and write themselves. Got it. Good talk. Thanks for participating.

---

Pretty good chance it was a Republican who wrote the post. But I know you can split hairs all day long.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ah, denial...thanks for clarifying.

---

I didn't deny anything. But the score is very, very lopsided. A blind defense attorney could see that.

Theres a thread about Brian Kilmeade that has plenty of us on the right saying he should have lost his job. I know that goes against what you want to see but those are facts. Maybe that's why you're avoiding recognizing that's the case.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ah, denial...thanks for clarifying.

---

I didn't deny anything. But the score is very, very lopsided. A blind defense attorney could see that.

Theres a thread about Brian Kilmeade that has plenty of us on the right saying he should have lost his job. I know that goes against what you want to see but those are facts. Maybe that's why you're avoiding recognizing that's the case.

---

The vast majority of Kilmeade's audience is on the right. If they really wanted him to lose his job, he would have lost his job.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

MTG said we are going to use the courts to prosecute and hang traitors? Well that's JUST LIKE cheering on assassinations... if you don't care about due process.

---

Exactly...and we know how much the Trump administration cares about it.

---

Well, the person you're specifically crying about mentioned due process. Funny you're afraid of putting those criminals through trial. What a shock.

---

She also liked the idea that a bullet would be quicker.

---

She is a nutjob. Not sure of your point.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

---

That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political-weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

---

That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political-weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi

---

Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

---

I was wrong about Piker. He called for the murder of Governor/Senator Scott of Florida before Kirk was murdered. He still should not have been given editorial space in the New York Times afterwards, especially when the New York Times previously fired its editor for giving editorial space to Senator Cotton because he was a conservative and therefore made the newsroom "unsafe" - despite not calling for the murder of any other politician/public figure. What does that say about how educated and literate liberals have already been treating free speech as a value? Many of them have had a problem with free speech starting around 20 years ago.

Recent behavior and polling on support for political violence shows you should be far more worried about near-future political violence from liberals rather than conservatives.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

---

That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political- weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi

---

Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.

---

If those documents are right, they were not simply "investigating suspected crimes," and there is no justification for it. They were on a massive fishing expedition to use the FBI and DoJ as a for political purposes. This is J. Edgar Hoover all over again and could use a Church Committee.

There are certain situations where what one might characterize as "hate speech" is unprotected speech.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

---

Recent behavior and polling on support for political violence shows you should be far more worried about near-future political violence from liberals rather than conservatives.

---

I was until a few years ago. Always assumed the right was aging out of power and the young commies would soon run rampant. Despite last week's atrocity, I'm not so sure any more.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

---

That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political- weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi

---

Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.

---

If those documents are right, they were not simply "investigating suspected crimes," and there is no justification for it. They were on a massive fishing expedition to use the FBI and DoJ as a for political purposes. This is J. Edgar Hoover all over again and could use a Church Committee.

There are certain situations where what one might characterize as "hate speech" is unprotected speech.

---

"Suspected" may not be the right word. They were fishing, but fishing for things they could prosecute as crimes. Bondi is more or less declaring open season on dissent.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

---

That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political- weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi

---

Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.

---

If those documents are right, they were not simply "investigating suspected crimes," and there is no justification for it. They were on a massive fishing expedition to use the FBI and DoJ as a for political purposes. This is J. Edgar Hoover all over again and could use a Church Committee.

There are certain situations where what one might characterize as "hate speech" is unprotected speech.

---

"Suspected" may not be the right word. They were fishing, but fishing for things they could prosecute as crimes. Bondi is more or less declaring open season on dissent.

---

And the brief ministry of truth was just looking for honest to goodness misinformation to squelch.
And the targeting of parents at schools board meetings was totally legit.
And the different treatment of Biden and Trump over documents was just like the law should be.
And covid was not from a lab.
.....etc.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

---

That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political- weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi

---

Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.

---

If those documents are right, they were not simply "investigating suspected crimes," and there is no justification for it. They were on a massive fishing expedition to use the FBI and DoJ as a for political purposes. This is J. Edgar Hoover all over again and could use a Church Committee.

There are certain situations where what one might characterize as "hate speech" is unprotected speech.

---

"Suspected" may not be the right word. They were fishing, but fishing for things they could prosecute as crimes. Bondi is more or less declaring open season on dissent.

---

' Dissent ' as in killing those you want to permanently silence.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

---

Recent behavior and polling on support for political violence shows you should be far more worried about near-future political violence from liberals rather than conservatives.

---

I was until a few years ago. Always assumed the right was aging out of power and the young commies would soon run rampant. Despite last week's atrocity, I'm not so sure any more.

---

The recent polling on support for political violence is consistent; you have more to fear from liberals on that point. As shown by the murder last week and the general liberal reaction to it.

What do you think about the New York Times treatment of free speech for firing their editor for allowing an editorial that was not a left-wing viewpoint?

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.

---

That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.

---

They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.

When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.

---

These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.

On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.

I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.

---

Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.

---

For example, from NYT:

Quote:

---

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."

A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.

After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.

---

---

How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.

Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.

---

I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.

---

That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political- weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi

---

Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.

---

If those documents are right, they were not simply "investigating suspected crimes," and there is no justification for it. They were on a massive fishing expedition to use the FBI and DoJ as a for political purposes. This is J. Edgar Hoover all over again and could use a Church Committee.

There are certain situations where what one might characterize as "hate speech" is unprotected speech.

---

"Suspected" may not be the right word. They were fishing, but fishing for things they could prosecute as crimes. Bondi is more or less declaring open season on dissent.

---

As I said, not necessarily. There are cases where what someone might characterize as "hate speech" is, in fact, criminal.