Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

There is a subsect of the alt-right, particularly among perpetually online incel types, who think MAGA is too liberal. Since this jerk was apparently a follower of Nick Fuentes and Laura Loomer that kind of fits right in. And apparently those hard-core alt-right fools love to call "moderates" like Charlie Kirk "fascists". Apparently this is because the hard core is vehemently anti-Israel. No, I don't get it either.

The online gaming spaces this idiot was partaking in are also are 99 percent insanely hard-core right wing. Especially with dystopian military sci-fi games like Helldivers. Several of the weird comments engraved on the shell casings were in-group jokes from that subculture.

I've been told, and don't even know if I believe it, that there are parts of that hard-right incel perpetually online subculture that are so misogynistic that they would rather groom a man to dress up like a woman for sexual purposes than deal with an actual real woman. This also overlaps with the "furry" subculture a bit (which this bonehead was also apparently into). Again I don't know if I even imagine all that but this subculture is so damned weird that I can't immediately discount it.

It is also damned suspicious that all of the juicy inside information about the shooter's motives seem to be coming from one source and are amplified by being passed around amongst various Murdoch media properties.

The best analogy to the convulsions the media is going through trying to explain all this is imagine 1970s suburban white-bread middle-aged people trying to understand punk rock and that subculture. But put it all online and keep it nearly invisible to normies.

At this point of time it would be best to wait for all of the facts to come in.

.
It’s a PERFECT post in ken-speak! No citations, no logic, no facts….just ‘here is what I believe….so it must be so!’

It is EXACTLY why - as MC has pointed out well - that the membership of a cult aligns so well with those who cant - or won’t - listen to science, fact or logic and go off on rants about vaccines, slanted science, climate hoaxes, refuting well established history….etc etc.

That place is a great place for the feeble-minded to dwell.

Apparently they just ‘know stuff’ that the rest of normal, educated, folk cant fathom. I recall reading about ‘a priori’ knowledge….
.

His family is not stating that he was radicalized by 'far left'. He was a gamer and a follower of Fuentes is not anything close to 'far left'. Show the you tube clip where his parents said that. And Ken's comment about out of control rioting, please hit your reset button and acknowledge J6. Look at the stats that I posted (from a Conservative outlet) that show 76% of the violence is committed by...and while you're at it please Ken, list the strong moral values that you admire in Kirk.

As Trump just observed: 'Smart people don't like me" https://www.youtube.com/shorts/h3mT4wyDAA0

Just for Ken: https://aaronparnas.substack.com/p/news ... dium=email

WILLful ignorance because you refuse to consider any responsibility is really quite grotesque! His family has stated as I said before, he was raised in a conservative household and raised with good morals and values but was radically changed by far-left rhetoric and fomented hatred of conservative values and strong voices. His trans lover (seen by neighbors on their porch) is cooperating with authorities and while giving the usual 'i never thought they'd go this far' it's clearly putting the narrative together. Charlie Kirk was a good man, strong Christian with good values and yes, strong beliefs and the conviction to debate those openly in areas where people are pumped full of your nonsense: this country is horrible, only Christians commit evil and every republican (who isn't a far left 'republican' like Ray likes) is not just wrong but evil. You simply cannot say people are Hitler, Nazi, dictator, fascist, trans-killers, rapists and everything evil without having people who aren't very stable take action! And yet not one car burnt down, no out of control vicious and dangerous riots, no cops being attacked in all of this. We are NOT the same.

Hardly a day goes by without them showing how little they value human life:

The strategy seems to be to make Charlie Kirk the poster boy for 'political violence' which is more convenient because it shuttles gun violence against children, churchgoers, theater attendees, domestic spouses etc over to the back burner. The political violence focus gives Trump his gasoline to fuel more ICE raids and of course the now much discussed 'lists' of people who are not mourning properly the death of CK. Much bragging online about how people are being reported and losing their jobs as well as people in the military, FBI, CEOs, NGO's, Democratic funders. Of course the outrage is focused purely on Ken's side as the noise machine declares that the Reps are the victims rather than the overwhelming perpetrators that stats show they are.

Stats: (From the Economist which is a Conservative outlet)
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=68CCAEB0

The journalist Jeff Sharlet sets the record straight on Charlie Kirk: ‘He was an opponent of free speech. There’s no other way to cut it, for a man who created something called Professor Watchlist, School Board Watchlist, to name and frighten people from teaching, who advocated restrictions on what school teachers could teach, who called for — and there’s a clip you can see online — who called for the televised public executions, and he had a pretty broad category in mind. But what was really chilling was he wanted this to be required viewing for children. And you can look at this clip, and you can see his colleagues. They’re sort of trolling, but Kirk, again and again, pulls it back to seriousness, and he says, “No, no, no, this isn’t a joke. This has to be a holy experience, a teaching experience for children, watching enemies be killed.” That is not a champion of free speech.’

I'm wondering how they are going to manage to make Charlie Kirk a martyr... Making someone a martyr requires a certain amount of empathy. The leaders of that movement are well-known for having zero empathy and consider empathy a weakness.

For those of you out there pushing for a violent or repressive response to a right-wing lunatic assassinating Charlie Kirk, remember that Tim Pool was a paid Russian propagandist in America, and was pushing for a civil war in the USA. And as the attached image shows, he has been pushing that "viewpoint" for years.

Click on the image to magnify.

The Atlantic Jonathan Chait
"From the moment an assassin shot Charlie Kirk, my social-media feed began filling up with people decrying the attack. The sentiment of horror—both at the murder itself and at what it portended for American political culture—was overwhelming and cross-ideological.

From the pro–Donald Trump conservatives in my timeline, however, I detected another sort of response. Although most expressed genuine grief at the tragedy befalling a figure many of them admired or knew, some others seemed preoccupied with proving that “the left” was celebrating the attack.

The challenge, for this cohort, is that Democratic Party leaders were united in condemnation of the attack on Kirk and political violence generally. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a gleeful pugilist who has made a brand out of aping the president’s disordered egomaniacal communication style, wrote, “The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible. In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form.” Zohran Mamdani, a New York City mayoral candidate so left-wing that many Democratic leaders refuse to endorse him, wrote, “I’m horrified by the shooting of Charlie Kirk at a college event in Utah. Political violence has no place in our country.”

And so, in the absence of evidence of any serious strain of liberal support for the Charlie Kirk murder, some influential voices on the right willed one into existence. They hunted the internet for expressions of support for Kirk’s murder, or even insufficient remorse, a search that yielded almost exclusively random private citizens.

Andy Ngo, a right-wing journalist with 1.7 million followers on X, produced offensive posts from such figures as the owner of an animal hospital in Oklahoma, a wealth manager in Pennsylvania, and grade-school teachers in Oregon and Idaho. The conservative Washington Free Beacon published one story about a post by a University of Michigan professor, and another about posts by a former Columbia-encampment organizer who notoriously endorsed the murder of Zionists and has long since been expelled from the school. An entire website, titled Charlie’s Murderers, was established to collect alleged pro-murder sentiment; as Wired reported, some of the posts it displayed had in fact been written before Kirk’s killing.

Some conservatives treated the anonymity of these scattered pro-violence posters as evidence of the breadth of their views. “The number of people celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death who work as teachers, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and other ‘helping professions’ is immensely disturbing,” the right-wing activist Chris Rufo posted on X. “We have a serious problem in this country.”

No question, some social-media posts about Kirk are genuinely grotesque. That anyone would celebrate Kirk’s death is sad. But in a nation of more than 300 million people, there is no offensive opinion you can’t find if you go looking for it. If support for Kirk’s assassination were a significant current of thought on the American left, right-wing journalists would call out the prominent people expressing glee. Because that’s not happening, they have to publish articles about random individuals.

Recommended Reading
Customers push shopping carts while crowded in a small room.
American Shoppers Are a Nightmare
Amanda Mull

illustration of people digging
The Killing of a Colorado Rancher
Rachel Monroe


The Slackification of the American Home
Taylor Lorenz and Joe Pinsker

Adrienne LaFrance: Strawberries in winter

Indeed, the fact that attention is being focused on such examples—and not on actual Democratic Party officeholders or major voices on the left—shows that the party has a healthy culture of marginalizing illiberal and violent sentiments. Thus the outpouring of condemnations, and thus too the bitterness that divides radical-left activists from the Democratic Party. This divide reflects a major structural difference between the two parties: The far left reviles the Democrats and their leaders, whereas right-wing activists worship Donald Trump.

Yet the Republican Party’s fanatical devotion to Trump requires an insistence that it is responding to a greater and more insidious form of fanaticism on the left. Positing a totalitarian and violent left-wing threat is necessary to justify Trump’s own behavior.

Many mainstream Republicans and legacy conservative outlets have behaved more responsibly, acknowledging that violent tendencies exist on the right and left alike. “The time for unity, the time for peace, it is now,” said Alabama Senator Katie Britt. “At some point, we have to find an off-ramp, or else it’s going to get much worse,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox pleaded this morning.

But a far more intemperate mood is equally if not more prevalent. “The left wants us dead,” the conservative commentator Matt Walsh posted to his 3.8 million followers. “Face the facts, and act accordingly.” On the House floor, Representative Bob Onder, of Missouri, declared, “There is no longer any middle ground. Some on the American left are undoubtedly well-meaning people, but their ideology is pure evil.” In a New York Post op-ed, the writer Batya Ungar-Sargon accused Democrats, whose political leaders unequivocally denounced Kirk’s assassination, of nonetheless “doubling down on the rhetoric that led to it.” Her evidence? They had condemned violence without admitting that “the vast majority of the political violence in this country is coming from their side.” (All of these comments, it should be said, came before any information whatsoever was known about the suspect.)

Yesterday, I wrote an article about Trump’s disturbing response to Kirk’s killing. I noted that, rather than calling for unity and calm, the president delivered an address in which he defined political violence as an exclusively left-wing problem, attributed it to the entire political opposition, and threatened the use of state power to suppress it. Even though the first sentence of my article described the murder as a “horrifying, cold-blooded assassination,” right-wing accounts began circulating screenshots of the headline as if it showed that I was celebrating Kirk’s death or calling for more violence. “This is absolutely vile. People like @jonathanchait are contributing to the vitriol and political violence that are ravaging our country,” Senator Marsha Blackburn posted.

These sorts of reactions might be forgivable if they were merely overheated expressions of an impulse to delegitimize political violence. But the purpose of this rhetoric is not to vilify political violence. It is to equate political violence with everyone perceived as being to the left of the Republican Party, so as to simultaneously delegitimize opposition to Trump while excusing even the most illiberal and violent forms of right-wing activity.

That was the unmistakable message of Trump’s Oval Office remarks Wednesday evening. But, in case anyone missed it, he made the point even clearer during a Fox & Friends appearance this morning. After one of the hosts posited, “We have radicals on the right as well,” and suggested that this was part of the challenge facing the country, Trump disputed the premise. “The radicals on the right are often radical because they don’t want to see crime,” he said. “They don’t want to see crime. They’re saying, ‘We don’t want these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shopping centers. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.’ The radicals on the left are the problem.”

First by omission, and now by commission, Trump is coming within a whisker of doing the exact thing that some of his allies are accusing “the left” of doing: justifying violence against his enemies. Much of the right is focusing on pro-violence statements by pet-hospital owners in Oklahoma while ignoring them by the world’s most powerful person. That is not blindness. It is a choice."

Me too
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=68CBC384

There has been a great deal of commentary the last few days about how "this isn't who we are" and how any kind of political violence is unacceptable.

That is all well and good. I wonder, though, how that lines up with the 2nd Amendment and historically recent generous interpretations of that Amendment. Isn't the very existence of that Amendment and those interpretations an argument that, at least sometimes, political violence is okay?

There is also the ugly fact that those who abhor political violence, who are certainly a large majority of the people, from a practical standpoint have zero say in whether political violence will be part of the conversation or not.

Pearl, I'll leave it up to Ken to source examples of similar statements coming from the Left. I just haven't seen anything comparable nor would I condone them.

Rideback, regarding your post. I had no idea that those on the far right were so hateful of just regular people that believe differently from them.
The influencers are a dangerous lot. Many people are angry and as Permaculture Rose said, they are taking that anger out on the working class, that have some different views, but of which they are a part of.
Where is an example of those on the left spouting off like this? Surely there must be some but few and far between, I would guess. Any sites?
The post shows how crazed people can get.

Who are 'Groypers'

https://scontent-sea5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=68CB7F3F

Amazing videos of the MAGA meltdowns BEFORE they even had any facts. Just horrifying.
I saw this piece this morning, along the same lines:

"It’s worth noting that I have not seen even one prominent Democrat, liberal, or progressive calling for violence – neither before nor after the murder of Charlie Kirk. Further, it is increasingly evident that Kirk’s alleged murderer was inspired by a right wing group called the Groyper Army, led by white supremacist Nick Fuentes, who had an ongoing beef with Kirk for being insufficiently right wing.
‘MINUTES AFTER RIGHT-WING activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at an event in Utah on Wednesday, far-right influencers and extremist communities lit up social media with calls for violence against the left.
Kirk, the cofounder of the conservative youth organizing group Turning Point USA, was shot and killed while taking questions at a TPUSA event held at Utah Valley University. Law enforcement officials said late afternoon Wednesday that a “person of interest” was in custody, but that individual was later released. No motive has yet been reported by authorities.
Despite this, many far-right influencers and Republican officials immediately blamed the left for carrying out the shooting. In some extremist groups, members called for civil war and violent retribution. “This is a war, this is a war, this is a war,” said Alex Jones, the influencer and school-shooting conspiracy theorist, during a livestream on his Infowars channel.
“For years those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals,” said President Donald Trump in a taped address posted to his Truth Social account. “This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in the country today.”
Oath Keeper founder Stewart Rhodes, who had his sentence for seditious conspiracy with regards to the January 6 Capitol riot commuted by Trump earlier this year, announced on Infowars that it was time to restart his militia group in order to provide public protection for figures like Kirk.
“I'm going to be rebuilding the Oath Keepers, and we will be doing protection again,” said Rhodes. “If my security team had been at that event, if they had been up there on the high point, looking for potential threats, they would have saved Charlie Kirk from being shot.”
Rhodes then called on Trump to “do what’s right, what’s necessary” and “invoke the Insurrection Act” in the wake of the shooting. “You should declare the left in this country is in obvious open rebellion against the law of the United States. They’re committing insurrection, they're aiding and abetting an invasion, and they're blocking the execution of federal law,” Rhodes said.
More mainstream right-wing commentators and lawmakers have also joined in the rush to blame the left and call for action.
Ed Martin, the US pardon attorney and former acting US attorney for DC, wrote on X: “For it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord,” citing Romans 12:19.
Elon Musk, the X owner and former figurehead of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), posted: “The Left is the party of murder.” He then quoted a post blaming “the left-wing mainstream media, as well as figures like Gavin Newsom” for radicalizing people against right-wing figures like Kirk. “Exactly,” Musk wrote.
Katie Miller, who worked closely with Musk at DOGE and is the wife of Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, wrote on X that even liberals condemning the violence “had blood on their hands.”
“You could be next,” influencer and unofficial Trump adviser Laura Loomer posted on X. “The Left are terrorists.”
Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who popularized the demonization of critical race theory, suggested in a post on X that the “radical left” was responsible for the shooting, and urged the US government “to infiltrate, disrupt, arrest, and incarcerate all of those who are responsible for this chaos.”
Republican representative Derrick Van Orden from Wisconsin also blamed the shooting on “leftwing political violence” and warned on X that “whoever does not condemn this is part of the problem. The gloves are off.”
On the floor of the House, after Democrats and Republicans observed a “moment of prayer,” led by House speaker Mike Johnson, for Charlie Kirk and his family, representative Lauren Boebert called for a spoken prayer. Some Democrats said no, and referenced the school shooting in Colorado that also occurred Wednesday. Shouting broke out, and Republican representative Anna Paulina Luna yelled across the aisle, “Y’all caused this.” One Democrat, according to The New York Times, responded, “Pass some gun laws!”
On X, Luna continued to blame the left: “EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU WHO CALLED US FASCISTS DID THIS. You were too busy doping up kids, cutting off their genitals, inciting racial violence by supporting orgs that exploit minorities, protecting criminals, and stirring hate. YOU ARE THE HATE you claim to fight. Your words caused this. Your hate caused this.” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene also posted about Kirk’s death, calling on people to “rise up and end this.”
Blake Masters, a twice-failed US congressional candidate once backed by Palantir cofounder Peter Thiel and endorsed by Trump, called for RICO investigations into nongovernmental organizations as a result of the shooting.
“Left-wing violence is out of control, and it’s not random,” Masters posted on X. “Either we destroy the NGO/donor patronage network that enables and foments it, or it will destroy us.”
Masters was quoting a post from right-wing podcaster and conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, who blamed the shooting on the left. “Congressional hearings now,” Cernovich posted on X. “Every billionaire funding far left wing extremism. Soros, Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman. Massive RICO investigations now.”
Chaya Raichik, who operates the anti-LGBTQ account Libs of TikTok, simply wrote: “THIS IS WAR.”
On fringe platforms like Trump’s own Truth Social and The Donald, the rabidly pro-Trump message board that was responsible for some of the planning of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, numerous users echoed Jones’ comments about war.
“War is coming,” one user of The Donald wrote on a thread dedicated to Kirk’s shooting. “War is here,” another responded.
Another user of The Donald wrote in the same thread: “Civil War is coming … this will give the left the blowback they’ve been begging white people for so they can play the victim and justify white genocide.”
In other threads, users on the same platform linked Kirk’s shooting to other attacks on conservative figures. “These are looking like civil war times,” the user wrote. “They fired the first shot Ashli Babbitt, the second, Donald Trump, third Trump and fourth Charlie Kirk shot. Our side hasn’t fired a bullet.” Babbitt was shot by a police officer while inside the Capitol during the January 6 riots; the man who allegedly attempted to assassinate Trump in July of last year had no clear political motive.
Even some of Kirk’s detractors on the far right, who saw him as not extreme enough, framed his death as a potential recruiting tool.
"In life Charlie Kirk was our enemy because he did whatever he could to undermine White collectivism,” wrote Christopher Pohlhaus, the neo-Nazi leader of the white supremacist group Blood Tribe. “In death he is a martyr because he was killed in a political climate in which he was seen as one of us despite the fact that he was not.”
“We hope this is a lesson learned for the remaining moderates out there,” wrote the neo-Nazi group American Futurist on its Telegram page. “We hope any people who are not willing to commit realize the reality of our situation before they end up like Charlie. You will be an evil racist Nazi no matter who you are. You are their enemy."
For extremist researchers who closely track these groups, the immediate and unified response to the death of Kirk is particularly worrying.
“Rufo calling for arrests of all those who are responsible for this chaos; Cernovich and Blake Masters calling for RICO-style crackdowns against Dem donors; a whole lot of everyday people declaring gloves off.” says Jeff Sharlet, author of The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War. “99.9 percent of those are just spouting off. But today, if anything, teaches us the damage that 0.1 percent can do.”’
https://apple.news/AqPXWhtOCRgyzWIZYxRMn-w

About those engravings:

https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-bullet-memes/

But in the aftermath of this shooting and others like it, Alex Newhouse, a researcher at the University of Colorado at Boulder who studies extremism, says any critiques of gaming culture in this instance must be contextualized. “It's not a specific game, but it's rather the use of gaming references. It's not the specific meme, but rather the use of online memes,” he says. “It's not the specific ways that things are written on the gun, but that they’re writing something on the gun at all.”

It’s important to not read too deeply into any face-value political meaning of the messages on the bullet casings, Newhouse says. “It's pretty indicative of general speech associated with the deep parts of internet culture, in particular the types that are very much into irony posting and edgelord humor.”

"In the past few decades, most political martyrs in America who were assassinated for their beliefs or the views they expressed, were Democrats or civil-rights leaders or people who espoused liberal ideology: President John F. Kennedy (1963); Medgar Evers (1963); Malcomb X (1965); Senator Robert F. Kennedy (1968); Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968); liberal talk-radio commentator Alan Berg (1984); abortion provider Dr. George Tiller (2009); State Senator Clementa Pinckney (2015); former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman (2025).
And most of their killers have been motivated by conservative ideology.
A deceptive lie is emerging from Trump and the right claiming Democrats are the killers and Republicans are the victims.
But the opposite is true.
Charlie Kirk is the FIRST high-profile Republican in modern times to be gunned down because of his political beliefs.
And it wasn’t at the hands of a Democrat. Or a trans person. Or a gay person. Or a black person.
Charlie Kirk was killed by the demographic that commits most mass shootings and political assassinations in this country — a straight white male.
Kirk’s killer, Tyler Robinson, comes from a conservative Christian family steeped in gun culture. His mother often publicly posted photos on Facebook of herself and her three sons brandishing assault rifles. Both his mother and his father are registered Republicans. His grandmother, Debbie Robinson, told the Daily Mail that he was brought up in a "staunch Republican and Trump-loving family." In 2018 he dressed for Halloween as Pepe the Frog, a symbol appropriated by the alt-right white supremacist movement and designated as a hate symbol by the Anti-Defamation League in 2016.
Right-wing queen-of-mean Laura Loomer recently (in July) viciously attacked Charlie Kirk after he called for the Epstein files to be released and criticized Trump’s military actions. Loomer called Kirk a “charlatan” and a “political opportunist” and someone who “stabs Trump in the back.” She said he had “betrayed” the president.
Alt-right white supremacist Nick Fuentes encouraged his fans to troll and attack Charlie Kirk for being “insufficiently committed to nationalism” and being a “fake conservative.” Kirk had a deep friendship and often collaborated with a gay black man, Rob Smith, an Iraq War combat veteran. Fuentes specifically sent his fans to events co-hosted by Charlie Kirk and Rob Smith to ask degrading questions like, “How does anal sex help us win the culture war?”
It has been widely reported on social media that Tyler Robinson followed Loomer and “admired” Fuentes.
This whole thing could be “right on right” crime — Tyler Robinson may have killed Charlie Kirk for not being conservative enough; Robinson may have believed he was doing the bidding of ultra conservatives Loomer and Fuentes when he took out Kirk.
And yes, if you count the incident in Butler Pennsylvania, there was an attempted assassination on Trump last summer. But his shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was a registered Republican and FBI deputy director Paul Abbate described Crooks's activity on social networking platforms as antisemitic and anti-immigrant — right-wing positions.
Even in the extremely rare case when Republicans are victims of political violence, the perpetrators are still conservative — the violence in this country comes almost exclusively from the right... 1,200 conservatives were convicted in connection with the violence of January 6 and not a single Democrat was among them.
The only exception is the non-fatal shooting of Republican Congressman Steve Scalise by a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2017. Bernie immediately took to the Senate floor and publicly denounced the shooter and his actions.
Another lie emerging from Trump and the right is the blatantly false statement that transgendered people are more likely to commit mass shootings.
According to Fox News there have been seven mass shootings that were carried out by trans shooters.
But according to PolitiFact, from 2018 to 2025, there were 4,147 mass shootings, based on Gun Violence Archive data which defines mass shooting as at least 4 people being shot, not including the shooter.
This means there were 4,140 mass shooters who were NOT trans and only 7 shooters who were trans.
Seven out of 4,147 is .17%. That’s not “seventeen percent.” It’s “POINT seventeen percent” or 17% of 1%. Said another way, out of every 10,000 shooters, only 17 would be trans and the other 9,983 shooters would not be trans.
Seven trans shooters in 8 years works out to one trans shooting every 417 days. As I have previously demonstrated in my writings, preachers commit sex crimes against children at an average rate of one a day — the same time-frame that would yield ONE trans shooting, would also yield 417 preachers exposed for committing sex crimes against children.
Yet, society is still reluctant to draw a connection between being a preacher and a predator, even as some on the right are discussing whether there is a “pattern” of violence involving transgender individuals." Craig Cree Hardegree

Riiiight

Based on the above, the only thing I can conclude is that right-wingers are just waiting for the day they can get their AR-15s out and kill their neighbors. I for one can't see the point in having any kind of debate with someone who might decide to murder me tomorrow.

Imagine if the killer was hispanic or black. Don't you think the pogroms would have already started?

dorankj wrote: Fri Sep 12, 2025 7:56 pm And Ray your specific jab is noted, shows your true quality. Nice job, 'brother'.

Gee Ken, sorry you get butt hurt so easily…

.
Now, the apologists - and the hagiographers (look it up, ken…you ignert tool)…begin to wade in and try to re-write the story….
.
Socrates? Really….
. .

You never disappoint Jim, go to hell asshole!