Can Utah Save America?

[richravizza 30]

9 hours ago, jakee said:

Remember that shithead thought kids should be forced to watch public executions. I mean come on man, spreading god’s merciful love? This is a supposedly devout Christian who read the bible and ended up rooting for the Romans.

Ironic, given that shithead was a traitor who helped organise a literal attack on the nation on Jan 6.

 YA, like Peter and Paul lol I'm not religious but for Ironies sake, hunted down and tortured by the World's greatest Empire.Only to have the church built on top of that very empire,for what now 2000 years? Cool David and goliath story. Charlie going to a Campus empire,  Dominated By the leftist Ideology.Facing the institutions professors the Giants, with only a weapon of  Words.

I wish I was part of that revolution,too.

[richravizza 30]

7 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

You're so deep in the warrens it hard to believe you can get online. Academia tries to warn about the spread of hate. 

In the EU, Kirk would have been locked up in jail, in Canada locked up in jail. Australia locked up in jail. Current polls in Israel state that the current government would be out of power if an election was held today. Only with Trump's support does the indicted war criminal Netanyahu continue his crimes.

Its Trump's fault that 10/7 even occurred. Trump and Netanyahu want to profit off Gaza. Trump has publicly stated that as a business plan. 

Excuse me Phill, I'm still raw but....Bullshit!  Academia the media and the left has his blood on their hands, What bs.

Locked UP for speech?  You are deep in the warrens sir, You've lost your way. I suppose Charlie deserved it,not even in the ground and their pissin on his ghost. If you think kirk should have been jailed, the I think you're lost, so far so far left your 180 out and headed up jump run. I'll just yell for you ever once in a while,Listen for my voice scream 1A, it'll help get you out of the wilderness.

Trump is Hitler,Republicans are fascist Even on this debate forum there was a Trump vs,Hitler thread...until I destroyed it! So to Charlie and the autodidactic.Perhaps you don't realize the mass delusion,I'll bet if we scoured your words here,there would plenty for us to piss on,too.

"Academia tries to warn about the spread of hate." Ya Academicia...lol it cultivated it, the enemies, the CRT ,neo-marxist ideology our environment and now it Trumps fault.I'm assuming your an academic how many conservatives are colleges and or friends,as percentage is it close to 50%.

 I was specifically using 10/7 in the  2021 context as the example.

Edited September 14 by richravizza

[jakee 1,643]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

 YA, like Peter and Paul lol I'm not religious but for Ironies sake, hunted down and tortured by the World's greatest Empire.

Yes, and when shithead read that part he evidently thought the guy doing the torture and execution was the protagonist.

Quote

Charlie going to a Campus empire,  Dominated By the leftist Ideology.Facing the institutions professors the Giants, with only a weapon of  Words.

Imagine the courage of all the liberal students debating him, armed only with a weapon of words, daring to face down a multi-million dollar media empire dedicated to pushing right wing ideology. 

Edited September 14 by jakee

[jakee 1,643]

51 minutes ago, richravizza said:

Locked UP for speech?  You are deep in the warrens sir, You've lost your way. I suppose Charlie deserved it,not even in the ground and their pissin on his ghost. If you think kirk should have been jailed, the I think you're lost, so far so far left your 180 out and headed up jump run.

 

Trump: News outlets giving you their opinion cannot be legal!

[richravizza 30]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Yes, and when shithead read that part he evidently thought the guy doing the torture and execution was the protagonist.

Imagine the courage of all the liberal students debating him, armed only with a weapon of words, daring to face down a multi-million dollar media empire dedicated to pushing right wing ideology. 

My god your ignorance is astounding, A Shithead would refer to someone with;

Eight convictions from 97- 2005 including time served and gotta ways.

Put a gun to your gut to rob you, and would have five children not three.

Start their Monday with improving parenting skills including some  meth,fent and a lil weed because they're trying to limit his alcohol consumption,due to a heart condition.

I think a fake twenty was found in his collection basket.lol

[jakee 1,643]

3 minutes ago, richravizza said:

A Shithead would refer to someone

Who tried to tear up the constitution and overthrow the government and who was so racist he thought any black person in any job had stolen a white person's slot. Yes, we agree!

[richravizza 30]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Who tried to tear up the constitution and overthrow the government and who was so racist he thought any black person in any job had stolen a white person's slot. Yes, we agree!

IDK....  a monster, a shadow on the floor.

I reread your previous reply,did you actually get Bucks perspective? if so Wow ,Bravo Girl. 

I think I read between your lines; you may have actually watched some, listened perhaps for a moment to Buck if that is true ... please excuse me for the name calling.At least We're agreeing on something,IDK precisely but I think it's that we shouldn't judge or hire  people based on their race. If so... we got ourselves a two fur,Boom!

Edited September 14 by richravizza

[nigel99 680]

16 hours ago, jakee said:

Yeah… by Charlie.

That is ironic, since intellectual cowardice is probably his greatest hallmark. As above, shithead spreads a virulently anti trans message in public but is presumably quite different in private.

I saw an interesting post yesterday about Charlie and social media algorithms. Someone was talking to their friend about him and she really liked Charlie and couldn’t understand why the friend hated him. 

During the discussion it came out that the one who liked him and only ever had good positive videos and interviews in her feed over the years, videos the person who didn’t like him had never seen. Likewise the person who liked him was horrified when she saw the other side of Charlie. 

It goes to show what an echo chamber social media is. 

[dogyks 30]

2 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

I saw an interesting post yesterday about Charlie and social media algorithms. Someone was talking to their friend about him and she really liked Charlie and couldn’t understand why the friend hated him. 

During the discussion it came out that the one who liked him and only ever had good positive videos and interviews in her feed over the years, videos the person who didn’t like him had never seen. Likewise the person who liked him was horrified when she saw the other side of Charlie. 

It goes to show what an echo chamber social media is. 

In all seriousness, how does one access the videos of Charlie being cruel and rude or expressing hate or whatever?

FWIW, I disagree with rather a few of his conclusions, but haven't stumbled across any that support the fascist, Nazi or other allegations that have been made.

Admittedly, I haven't watched a lot of his stuff, but made it far enough through a few videos including him to guess that his schtick was consistent.

Whenever I ask for evidence that there is a Mr. Hyde to the Dr. Jekyll, all I get is hand waving.

If someone can provide a link, it's appreciated.

[nigel99 680]

43 minutes ago, dogyks said:

In all seriousness, how does one access the videos of Charlie being cruel and rude or expressing hate or whatever?

FWIW, I disagree with rather a few of his conclusions, but haven't stumbled across any that support the fascist, Nazi or other allegations that have been made.

Admittedly, I haven't watched a lot of his stuff, but made it far enough through a few videos including him to guess that his schtick was consistent.

Whenever I ask for evidence that there is a Mr. Hyde to the Dr. Jekyll, all I get is hand waving.

If someone can provide a link, it's appreciated.

I’m guessing YouTube? His channel has hours of videos and should be possible to find the ones that people are quoting. 

[murps2000 87]

1 hour ago, dogyks said:

In all seriousness, how does one access the videos of Charlie being cruel and rude or expressing hate or whatever?

FWIW, I disagree with rather a few of his conclusions, but haven't stumbled across any that support the fascist, Nazi or other allegations that have been made.

Admittedly, I haven't watched a lot of his stuff, but made it far enough through a few videos including him to guess that his schtick was consistent.

Whenever I ask for evidence that there is a Mr. Hyde to the Dr. Jekyll, all I get is hand waving.

If someone can provide a link, it's appreciated.

Does it have to be video? 

https://zeteo.com/p/charlie-kirk-in-his-own-words

He should not have been killed for anything he said or for any reason at all. Unfortunately this seems to be who we are.

[billvon 3,169]

2 hours ago, dogyks said:

In all seriousness, how does one access the videos of Charlie being cruel and rude or expressing hate or whatever?

Questions like this are sadly very common.

"Melissa Hortman?  Who's that?"
"Someone attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband?  And Charlie Kirk mocked him for it?  I never heard that!"
"No one ever tried to kill any democrats!"

[jakee 1,643]

11 hours ago, richravizza said:

At least We're agreeing on something,IDK precisely but I think it's that we shouldn't judge or hire  people based on their race.

Problem is if you agree on that you definitely disagree with shithead Charlie.

[dogyks 30]

8 hours ago, nigel99 said:

I’m guessing YouTube? His channel has hours of videos and should be possible to find the ones that people are quoting. 

I've put as much time into YouTube as I'd prefer.  Some of his points I oppose strongly, some I find okay, but I couldn't pick up on anything that would support the claims of hatred, racism, fascism and so forth that have so blithely been made.

Again, seriously, if someone that isn't killfiled has a link to a video that would support these claims, it would greatly clarify the issue.

I haven't watched either to any great extent, but his tone was orders of magnitude more civil than, say, 'The View.'

[jakee 1,643]

8 hours ago, murps2000 said:

Does it have to be video? 

https://zeteo.com/p/charlie-kirk-in-his-own-words

You'll be very disappointed if you think Winsor will see any of those quotes as being problematic. He's actually parroted many of them. Kirk falsely claimed he knew he'd lost a West Point slot to an inferior DEI candidate. Winsor falsely claimed he knew he'd lost a job opportunity to an inferior DEI candidate. Kirk said he didn't trust any black pilot. Winsor has said on multiple occasions there are cohorts of unqualified DEI pilots out there. Heck - given this quote from Winsor I don't think Kirk ever said (in public at least) anything as expicitly racist as him.

"Any dog or horse breeder can expound at length on the merits and deficiencies of one breed or sex for a particular role, and if you dispute that I ask who you favor in a race between a trained Thoroughbred and a Clydesdale. The differences between peoples are every bit as great as those between variants of other species."

9 hours ago, dogyks said:

Whenever I ask for evidence that there is a Mr. Hyde to the Dr. Jekyll, all I get is hand waving.

That is hilarious given the gaping silence that follows every single time someone asks why you keep claiming that Kamala Harris or Hilary Clinton are unqualified evil bitches.

Edited September 15 by jakee

[dogyks 30]

11 hours ago, murps2000 said:

Does it have to be video? 

https://zeteo.com/p/charlie-kirk-in-his-own-words

He should not have been killed for anything he said or for any reason at all. Unfortunately this seems to be who we are.

Thanks, I appreciate the link.

In all fairness, I agree with some of his more incendiary comments in context.

'Affirmative Action' can result in poorly qualified talent being hired, though there are other paths to mediocrity.  I have worked with various people with ostensibly good degrees where I couldn't figure out how they could possibly have graduated.  I thus try to stick with people who are licensed by dispassionate selection.

I know all too many blacks who find 'black culture' abhorrent; one must be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. 

Not being a follower of the Magic Jewish Zombie, I'm used to hearing a lot of dreck espoused by that cult.  When someone identifies as "Christian" of any description, I take their related positions with a grain of salt.  It's conditional psychosis, and I'm used to it.

Anyhow, through I'm hardly on the same page as was Charlie, anyone who thinks he deserved to die for his positions is way fucked up.

[jakee 1,643]

28 minutes ago, dogyks said:

In all fairness, I agree with some of his more incendiary comments in context.

Which just goes to prove how racist they are.

[wmw999 2,638]

27 minutes ago, dogyks said:

Anyhow, through I'm hardly on the same page as was Charlie, anyone who thinks he deserved to die for his positions is way fucked up.

Nobody on this forum disagrees with that. It’s a straw man.

That said, as someone who is part of the dominant culture in many ways, it’s easier to find the faults in the different. I’ve worked with at least as many marginally competent or incompetent white men as all other incompetents combined. Thats partly because of my industry in the latter part of my career (computer science), and partly because management (overwhelmingly white male) could understand the problems of men. But women being bullied or talked over in meetings? Minorities not even being invited as optional, only mandatories? They should just grow some balls or thicker skin or something.

The obviously superior in all ways will stand out. It’s just that sometimes it’s easier to see the faults in someone who already stands out, because you don’t understand the unique problems they may face — only the ones you share.

So many men don’t think that an always-adversarial testosterone-laden environment is as issue. Except that it silences anyone who isn’t that way. Why shouldn’t the dominants have to step out of their fucking comfort zone sometimes?

Wendy P. 

[dogyks 30]

36 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Nobody on this forum disagrees with that. It’s a straw man.

That said, as someone who is part of the dominant culture in many ways, it’s easier to find the faults in the different. I’ve worked with at least as many marginally competent or incompetent white men as all other incompetents combined. Thats partly because of my industry in the latter part of my career (computer science), and partly because management (overwhelmingly white male) could understand the problems of men. But women being bullied or talked over in meetings? Minorities not even being invited as optional, only mandatories? They should just grow some balls or thicker skin or something.

The obviously superior in all ways will stand out. It’s just that sometimes it’s easier to see the faults in someone who already stands out, because you don’t understand the unique problems they may face — only the ones you share.

So many men don’t think that an always-adversarial testosterone-laden environment is as issue. Except that it silences anyone who isn’t that way. Why shouldn’t the dominants have to step out of their fucking comfort zone sometimes?

Wendy P. 

So you insist on the right to be every bit as mediocre as the dominant majority.  Got it.

[wmw999 2,638]

4 minutes ago, dogyks said:

So you insist on the right to be every bit as mediocre as the dominant majority.  Got it.

I insist on the right to be judged using the same standards, and not to have to exceed the dominant majority in every way to be judged as adequate.

Wendy P.

[dogyks 30]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

I insist on the right to be judged using the same standards, and not to have to exceed the dominant majority in every way to be judged as adequate.

Wendy P.

Level playing field.  We're on the same page there.

I'm wildly indifferent to where someone is from or what they look like from a professional standpoint.  If they are reliable, dedicated and competent, they're in.

I'll admit to preferring the company of pleasant and attractive women in general, but the primary concern is to be in the company of trusted professionals.

If I am conducting an interview, bringing up religion, sex, political leanings or race is a show stopper.

[wmw999 2,638]

10 minutes ago, dogyks said:

I'm wildly indifferent to where someone is from or what they look like from a professional standpoint.  If they are reliable, dedicated and competent, they're in.

But you regularly mention the EEO-types who fall short, and never the white males.

Wendy P. 

[billvon 3,169]

10 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

But you regularly mention the EEO-types who fall short, and never the white males.

Because he knows that white males never benefit from any aspect of society.  They are the downtrodden, and thus if they succeed, it is entirely upon their own merit.  Unlike, say, women or gays or brown people or black people or Muslims or trans people, who have had only benefits from society.

It is also interesting that Winsor claims he is wildly indifferent to a person's background when it comes to value judgments about their intelligence or abilities.  But has also stated that trans people are mentally ill and that Muslims are nuts because they worship a pedophile.  (Which is even more ironic today.) 

[jakee 1,643]

34 minutes ago, dogyks said:

I'll admit to preferring the company of pleasant and attractive women in general, but the primary concern is to be in the company of trusted professionals.

If I am conducting an interview, bringing up religion, sex, political leanings or race is a show stopper.

See this is where the obvious bullshit lies. If you only hire the candidates who are objectively the best qualified and most capable, why the fuck do you need to carry out an interview?

Anyone who has ever been involved in recruiting or being recruited knows that a competitive hiring process is filled with subjective judgements of a candidate's character and personality and that those things have a huge influence on the result.

Anyone claiming otherwise is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

[dogyks 30]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

But you regularly mention the EEO-types who fall short, and never the white males.

Wendy P. 

I'm not big on identity politics. Focusing on race and sex is racist and sexist.

If I have to spell it out, I oppose mediocrity in any guise.  Policies that give a pass to one group or another, whoever that group may be, are unacceptable.

If the Marines have to reduce the upper body strength requirements to get enough candidates to pass, that's not okay. Whether the candidates are Gen Z mom's basement gamers or females doesn't much matter - training by flag football rules is poor preparation for opposing the Green Bay Packers.

If I'm in the cockpit, I want a high level of assurance that the person beside me will handle an emergency swiftly and efficiently, full stop.  If race or sex comes into the equation, they can deal with that elsewhere.