No discussion on this?


Streamer

Surprising, isn't it?

I'll say something. It was a horrible thing...a good husband and father murdered in front of his family for wanting to have a discussion. Done being surprised?

I don't condone unwarranted violence, and killing Charlie Kirk doesn't solve anything. I can't possibly imagine what drove the young Utah man to shoot Kirk. I can only assume he is some kind of crazy, like other shooters or would be shooters, like the guy in Florida who attempted to shoot Trump.

It's impossible not to note, however, the implicit irony of Kirk being shot since he stressed that the loss of several lives per year to firearm violence was an acceptable price for having the benefit of the 2nd Amendment. Kirk also claimed that empathy was a negative human attribute, or words to that effect, so I'm not wasting any of my time on sympathy or empathy for Kirk, his family, or his friends, confident that he wouldn't want me to. I guess it's not all that strange that a guy who promoted hate was shot.

Salmo. The problem with the kid was that he was brainwashed to think that kirk was the spreader of hate by far left media, that he would take his life over politics and his freedom of speech. Seems that the life taker and the liars of his hatespreading without actually knowing charlie are the ones filled with hate. Hope this helps. God bless america.

Seems About Right...

"Salmo. The problem with the kid was that he was brainwashed to think that kirk was the spreader of hate by far left media, that he would take his life over politics and his freedom of speech. Seems that the life taker and the liars of his hatespreading without actually knowing charlie are the ones filled with hate. Hope this helps. God bless america."

If the far left media, or any media, claimed that Kirk was a "spreader of hate," they weren't wrong. Kirk claimed that Martin Luther King was a "bad person," that the civil rights act was a bad idea, and a host of other ideas that promote divisiveness and racism among people. I don't see any evidence that Kirk was any kind of saint or a particularly good guy.

And what is the source of the information saying the shooter was brainwashed by far left media? Far right media? And while we're at it, why should God bless America any more than any other place? Does the bible say that God should favor one nation over another?

No source salmo. Just what ive put together after listening to the charges against him and the available evidence. I dont chose sides. I listen to the most supportive facts. This is the same type of hate pushed by the left that almost got trump assassinated. Charlie had his opinions, was open to dialogue with anyone and listened respectfully, then would give his thoughts back. Its called a debate salmo, not hate spreading. And salmo. We live in america, right? Its a great, free country, right? So yeah, god bless it. Its so catchy and great, they wrote a national song about it. Land that i love. Ps. Jesus and god are different, on how you interpret god. The bible is about Christianity, Judaism and the story of Jesus. Just about every christian i have met have been the most nice, accepting and forgiving people ive met, give you the shirt off of their back. Lastly. You can still love your country (god bless america) and also want the rest of the world to do well on their own and be at peace, without being a partisan hack.

Anybody out there think the whole thing could have been fake? A hollywood production?

Spoon, I'll assume we get our respective facts from different sources. When it comes to pushing hate, I see it coming from the right most often, from Trump, Stephen Miller, Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, and others among that cast of characters.

I'm familiar with debate, and that isn't what Kirk or many others who claim to debate actually do. When I've seen Kirk "debate" what he was doing was verbally arranging a put down of his opponent rather than constructively arguing the merits of his position.

RichG, No, I don't think it was faked. No Hollywood. Blood gushing from a ripped carotid artery and an instantly limp and lifeless body in front of many witnesses would be beyond difficult to fake. And how would anyone benefit from a stunt like that? Unfortunately, Kirk is gone and isn't coming back . . . on a Tuesday or any other day.

Political violence only begets more of the same. Don't like what Charlie Kirk had to say? You're at the event... at least try to talk to the guy before you waste him. That's why he was there, right? (I get that it's more complicated than that, but come on, people... this was out of hand years ago.)

Sounds like the killer was largely motivated by Kirk's anti-LGBT rhetoric (the male roommate who is cooperating with authorities was romantically involved with the killer). Free speech doesn't have to be pretty, kind, or even true to pass the bar; we're supposed to be able to say what we want, no matter how objectionable or offensive it might be to others, without being executed.

The anti-everything (from both sides) needs to stop if we're to have a chance of correcting the course to ruin we're on. We need to get focused back on the things 80% of us can all agree on and returning the BS we currentky base our politics on to the fringes, where it belongs.

Salmo claims that Kirk called Martin Luther King Jr. a "bad person," a man awful and flawed. Salmo is a boomer who probably didn't read MLK's FBI file but Kirk was citing King's infidelity and communist ties that Kirk unearthed in his research. Yet Kirk acknowledged King's one great speech with lines on character over color, even if he doubted King's belief in it. This was no blind malice, but a call to question the deification that, in Kirk's view, masked deeper societal ills like rising poverty and family breakdown. Was this hate, or honest scrutiny of history's icons? Yet Salmo says Kirk promoted hate; and Salmo is an honorable man.

Kirk claimed the Civil Rights Act was a bad idea, a "huge mistake" in Kirk's words, not for its intent to end discrimination, but for birthing a sprawling bureaucracy that Kirk argued twisted into DEI mandates, enforcing anti-white policies and chilling free speech, like the Title IX expulsions he decried. Kirk sought a colorblind meritocracy, evolving from earlier praise to warn of unintended chains on liberty. Was this racism, or a plea to reclaim equality without overreach? Yet Salmo says Kirk spread divisiveness and racism; and Salmo is an honorable man.

Salmo notes the irony of Kirk's shooting, assassinated on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University by a 22-year-old suspect now facing capital murder, gunned down while speaking freely, his life ended in a hail of political violence that investigators have yet to tie to any group. Kirk did say gun deaths are an "unfortunate cost" worth bearing for the Second Amendment's protection of God-given rights, but he condemned such acts, mourning school shootings and calling for fortified security, not surrender. This was no acceptance of assassination, but a defense of freedom against tyranny; the true irony is that Kirk's words on risks for rights were twisted, while he himself fell to the very hate he opposed. Yet Salmo sees only irony in his demise; and Salmo is an honorable man.

Salmo recalls Kirk scorning empathy as a "made-up, new-age term" that does damage but Salmo does not recall that Kirk preferred sympathy instead. Kirk criticizing its misuse in politics, where it might cloud judgment, as in empathetic rulings over just ones. Yet Kirk showed compassion in action, decrying crime's victims, aiding the vulnerable through his activism, and building bridges where he could. Salmo withholds empathy for Kirk's family, confident Kirk wouldn't want it, yet in doing so, echoes a selective hardness that Kirk warned against. Was Kirk's view hate, or a call for clarity amid emotional fog? But Salmo denies sympathy; and Salmo is an honorable man.

You all did see that Kirk fought for conservative truths, exposing what he saw as leftist excesses, from unchecked crime to cultural erosion; not to divide, but to unite under merit and faith. He built Turning Point USA to empower youth, not sow discord; his "host of other ideas" challenged the status quo, yes, but with facts and fervor, not racism. While critics labeled him hateful, yet he pressed on, undeterred. Which of us here would be a spreader of hate? Salmo says he was no saint, no good guy. Yet saints are rare, and good men still fall to bullets from the shadows.

Has Salmo's charge of hate blinded you to Kirk's zeal for America? The man who rallied against division was felled by it, shot for speaking under a banner saying "prove me wrong", his legacy twisted by those who claim virtue. Kirk sought a stronger nation. Hate? No, a fierce love for freedom. You, judge now: Was Kirk the hater, or the hated? Mourn him, for he deserved better than irony's bullet.

FP,

Well said. Thank you for taking the time eloquently critique Salmo’s misguided perspectives on the issue. It’s unfortunate that Salmo lacks true objectivity and instead rolls with the popular, leftist, mainstream narrative of Kirk being someone who promoted hate. Listen to his hours worth of videos and good luck finding all this “hate” they claim is there.

“Neo-progressives” change definitions and play a big semantics game and it’s at the core of their arguments. Their definition of “hate” is different than what would traditionally be considered hate. It’s a semantics game and anyone with an ounce of discernment can see right through it.



Streamer

Salmo questioning why God should bless America over other nations and whether the Bible supports favoring one nation, deserves a sharp, reasoned response. Let’s unpack it, starting with the framing of "God Bless America" as a prayer, and then build a broader case to counter his skepticism, grounding it in theology, history, and logic, while directly addressing his points.

First, Salmo’s right to question the phrase’s exclusivity, but he misses the mark by implying it’s a demand for divine favoritism. "God Bless America" isn’t a theological claim that America is uniquely entitled to God’s favor; it’s a humble petition, a prayer for divine guidance, protection, and prosperity for the nation, its people, and their neighbors. It’s no different from someone praying, “God bless my family” or “God bless this community.” It doesn’t negate blessings for others; it’s a focused plea for one’s own. The Bible supports such prayers: Psalm 122:6 urges, “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem,” a specific call for one city’s blessing, not a denial of others. Similarly, Americans praying for their nation reflects care for their immediate sphere, not a zero-sum game where God’s favor is hoarded. God is infinite and his blessings can be infinite too.

Salmo’s second point, "does the Bible say God should favor one nation?" needs nuance. The Bible doesn’t mandate universal favoritism for any single modern nation, including America. However, it does show God engaging with specific nations for His purposes. In the Old Testament, Israel was chosen as a “light to the nations” (Isaiah 42:6), not because of inherent superiority, but to reveal God’s law and character (Deuteronomy 7:7-8). This wasn’t blind favoritism; it came with responsibility and judgment when Israel strayed (Amos 3:2). God also blessed other nations, like Egypt through Joseph’s stewardship (Genesis 41), or used them, like Babylon, to fulfill His plans (Jeremiah 25:9). The principle here is that God interacts with nations based on their role in His redemptive story, not arbitrary preference. Apply this to America. No, the Bible doesn’t name America explicitly, how could it, written millennia ago? But America’s historical role as a beacon of religious liberty, free speech, and opportunity aligns with biblical values of justice and freedom to worship (Galatians 5:1). The nation’s founding documents, like the Declaration of Independence, invoke “Nature’s God” and inalienable rights, echoing biblical principles of human dignity (Genesis 1:27). America’s global impact of spreading democracy, aiding nations through charity, or defending against tyranny, can be seen as fulfilling a God-given purpose, not unlike Israel’s call to be a light. When people say “God Bless America,” they’re often asking for strength to live up to that calling, not demanding a divine VIP pass.

Salmo’s framing also ignores context. “God Bless America” emerged in times of crisis, like Irving Berlin’s 1918 song during World War I, revised in 1938 as war loomed again. It’s a cry for unity and divine help, not a boast of superiority. Historically, Americans have paired this prayer with action think of the Marshall Plan rebuilding Europe or private citizens’ global philanthropy. The U.S. has given over $2 trillion in foreign aid since World War II, per USAID data, hardly the act of a nation hoarding blessings. Salmo’s cynicism dismisses this as if praying for America negates care for others, which is a false dichotomy. One can pray for their nation while supporting global welfare, just as one prays for their child without hating others’ kids.

Now, let’s flip Salmo’s logic. If God shouldn’t bless America any more than other places, why pray for anyone or anything specific? Why pray for peace in Ukraine, health for a friend, or justice in a city? Salmo’s argument risks flattening all prayer into a vague, borderless wish-wash, undermining the personal, relational nature of biblical prayer. God invites specific requests (Philippians 4:6), and nations, like individuals, can seek His guidance. America’s not perfect, its flaws, from past slavery to modern divisions, are clear, but praying for its blessing is about seeking redemption and purpose, not divine favoritism.

Finally, Salmo’s question dodges the Bible’s broader call: nations are judged by their righteousness (Proverbs 14:34). America’s prayer for blessing carries an implicit challenge to align with justice, mercy, and humility (Micah 6:8). If Salmo thinks America’s unworthy, that’s a critique of its actions, not the prayer itself. The response isn’t to scoff but to join the prayer, God bless America, to do better.

In short: “God Bless America” is a plea, not a demand; the Bible shows God engaging nations for His purposes, not arbitrary favor; and America’s history of liberty and aid suggests a role worth praying to fulfill. Salmo’s wrong to frame it as chauvinism, it’s a call to live up to a higher standard, for America and beyond. Plus "God Bless America" seems to piss off the America haters, so God Bless America indeed.

If salmos ignorance is asking why god bless america? He definitely isnt capable or willing to comprehend all of that fp.

Hot damn… Salmo keeps getting wrecked… lol.


Streamer

Thanks for the kind words FP, assuming you're being sincere. Wow, so Kirk was maligned as spreading hate when it was left wing haters hating on Kirk. Huh, who'd a thunk it?

If Kirk sought a colorblind meritocracy, I'm in total agreement with that. Of course a person would have to be blind to believe that's even possible in the U.S. More than a half century after MLK's work for equality for blacks, and racism appears to be as alive and well as ever in America, aided and abetted since Trump's first term. The civil rights act was, and is, only necessary because of the prevalence of racism.

Meanwhile, no mourning for Kirk here; it might entail some empathy.

Nice Sunday school lesson FP. However, just who the fvck says it's a humble petition or prayer? It appears to be your interpretation, and a good one at that. But you stretched beyond the bounds of what's possible to know to make your case simply because it's impossible for you to know the intent of the sayer.

lol...wut? I stand correct with the last one. Salmo. Its literally a prayer, by america, to god, to help keep america safe. The only one keeping racism alive is salmo. You're the only that keeps bringing it up. Wait, and the squad and the view and msdnc. C'mon now.

Yeah, it's only the people who mention racism that are keeping it alive. The people who try to make it more difficult for blacks to vote, get jobs, get home mortgages, etc., yeah their actions aren't racist at all. Not to mention the KKK, not racist, not even a little bit. Since the SCOTUS repealed the election reporting requirement of the voting rights act, practically every southern state has enacted laws that make it just a bit harder for blacks to vote than for whites. Probably just a coincidence, right?