RIP Charlie Kirk

That one heck of negative claim, Brian_G.
It's a fact Lex. Show otherwise.

Especially coming from someone who openly eschews the individual responsibility to self-educate.
Now you're being a laughable troll again, you know only too well by now how false that statement of yours is.

I'm done here, unless you provide evidence for the first part ^^
 
Just like the tragic event that unfolded at CVU a year ago, seems like the MyBB Expits (™️) are also going off on a wild tangent again... how usual... ;)

View attachment 1936721
Kirk's assassination was the culmination of his rejection of/to being used as a regime-change puppet.... by the Epstein class.

Regime change is all about forcing one's rule-set onto others.

That's how this comment is on-topic/relevant: "The red flag is the impulse to force your rule-set onto the unwilling participant/s."
 
Kirk's assassination was the culmination of his rejection of/to being used as a regime-change puppet.... by the Epstein class.

Regime change is all about forcing one's rule-set onto others.

That's how this comment is on-topic/relevant: "The red flag is the impulse to force your rule-set onto the unwilling participant/s."
That's fine, but you were also referring to it generally.

You're forever 'done here'....
Yep, you trigger a lot of need to drop the discussion as you too often don't play fair. (These days)

as long as you have the last word.
In you mind. Find someone who agrees that's so.... you can't.

And now you'll back out of the other thread again too.
 
The burden of proof rest on the aggressor/aggressor's apologists.

It never rests on the person who openly advocates for a peaceful separation.

Disagreement is aggression?


Edit: If you meant re Charlie Kirk, agreed. Hard to keep up with what direction you're taking here.
 
Last edited:
Disagreement is aggression?
There is no in between, on this.

It's discourse/defensive force, or it's aggression.

You either concede to confining yourself to discourse, in the first instance, or you don't.

When you take the side of those who regularly demonstrate they only go through the motions of engaging in discourse, when under the spot light, you are an apologist for aggressors.

Apologists for aggressors are below pond scum. 🤮
 
There is no in between, on this.

It's discourse/defensive force, or it's aggression.

You either concede to confining yourself to discourse, in the first instance, or you don't.

When you take the side of those who regularly demonstrate they only go through the motions of engaging in discourse, when under the spot light, you are an apologist for aggressors.

Apologists for aggressors are below pond scum. 🤮

Ok, got it. Black or White only
 
I don't know the detail, but from that clip.... he's mocking him because the reporter is claiming a liability waiver because of his physical disability..... in remembering.

Taking refuge in a physical disability to excuse his journalistic short-coming... that's Epstein-class CNN at it's standard low.

Ofc, CNN has become a Trump champion & cheerleader, since Trump betrayed his base by reneging on his campaign promises.
 
I don't know the detail, but from that clip.... he's mocking him because the reporter is claiming a liability waiver because of his physical disability..... in remembering.
You should have stopped right there.
Taking refuge in a physical disability to excuse his journalistic short-coming... that's Epstein-class CNN at it's standard low.
??
Ofc, CNN has become a Trump champion & cheerleader, since Trump betrayed his base by reneging on his campaign promises.
??
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X