Well stated. I am at a loss trying to understand those that celebrate Kirk’s death. In their celebration they demonstrate what a deep moral abyss they are in. I wonder how they got there. My premise is that they do not have anything to believe and cherish in their lives, they follow flawed rhetoric that makes them feel “part of something”. Those (politicians, MSM, news talking heads) espousing violence, hateful speech and action against those that do not agree need to be identified and revealed for what they are. Let the poll of publican opinion do the rest.
John Barnett was silenced. He was shot in a hotel parking lot with no witnesses and declared a suicide so he wouldn't be able to speak in court about why boeing's planes were falling out of the sky. What we all saw last week was not quiet. Nobody can stop talking about it. Wall to wall media coverage, and I can hardly find a tweet about anything else nearly a week later. The silliest take I've been seeing is that this was a left/right issue. Do you know lots of lefty snipers? An alternate theory is it was someone up by the stage, which are also obviously not lefties either. Who benefits? Lots of money being thrown around over this right now. Millions of dollars for someone who was already making 400k per year. Who wants the left and right distracted over someone who is clearly been made into a martyr as most assassinations like this create. Why would anyone trust the official story? The FBI and other alphabet agencies should be prime suspects just like they were 100% responsible for the Gov Whitmer kidnapping plot, and much more. It wouldn't be the first time they used a sniper for a political goal. This so obviously has nothing to do with the left, but you all expect lefties to mourn with you, and that is also a completely unreasonable expectation. You can guess why from the Charlie Kirk quotes about starting a race war, about George Floyd and other police killings, about Palestine, and even about MLKjr. Doesn't make anyone a murderer for disliking the guy just as we can't blame Charlie Kirk for George Floyd's murder just because he was really happy about it. So ask, what is happening in the dark while everyone's eyes are on this? Are they using this to take away Constitutional protections? A lot of you are cheering for the State to do that.
If you've ever read any of my writing, you'll know that I am neither a hyperbolist nor someone who automatically takes the side of the one I tend to agree with more often. I never presume Republicans are innocent of wrongdoing, nor that Democrats are always the guilty party. All I ever seek to call out is the truth, since there's no other way to fix things.
What I'm gathering from your response is that you don't - you're more content to parrot talking points which you've heard elsewhere (which doesn't mean they're always wrong, just that many people form immutable opinions based on such small and unverified samples).
As to some of your contentions, let's start with John Barnett. His death certainly didn't receive the level of coverage that Charlie Kirk's did, but I would say that's less a conspiracy than an acknowledgement of the fact that he wasn't the public figure Kirk was. And I wouldn't call his death "quiet" - I heard about it in the news when it happened, and Netflix covered it in a Boeing documentary. As for it being a covered-up murder, I wasn't the investigator, but there was video of him parking his vehicle, after which nobody entered or exited it. Could that video have been altered and the crime scene staged to cover up a murder? I guess anything's possible, but considering the number of people who would have to have played ball in that conspiracy, it seems an unlikely default conclusion to draw.
Whether there are "lots of lefty snipers" or not (and I'm sure, just with ex-military, that there are plenty) is not really a relevant reason to dismiss that likelihood. It only takes one, after all.
If I read your thought correctly, you're implying that Kirk was intentionally killed for the express purpose of making him a martyr, meaning likely by his own "side". Sorry, but that's a stretch bordering on the ridiculous. Not to say I trust everything the FBI says at all times, but there were over 1,000 witnesses there (negating any "theories" that it was someone near the stage), and it's been well established that the shot came from where they're reporting in this case. And the agencies didn't just snag some sap out of left field - he was turned in by his own family.
Has the government ever inserted itself into some nefarious shit? Of course it has, and I don't mean to imply that they're above reproach, generally. But the math you describe in this case doesn't add up.
Also, saying things like Kirk was really happy about George Floyd's murder is exactly what I meant by "...people become obsessed with the righteousness of their points of view, often without bothering to experience the source of their scorn first-hand. They’re lazily content to absorb what their preferred talking heads spoon-feed them as political pablum and make preconceived judgments that they then carve into stone." Can you actually produce something showing him expressing happiness about Floyd's death? Or are you feeding the flames by taking something he might have said about the incident, with which you disagree, and projecting your own interpretation of his motivation onto it? I challenge you to produce such evidence, and I'll apologize if you can.
Thank you for responding, Barbara. This is exactly what Kirk was striving for - civil discourse between opposing points of view. And I respect your opinions, even though I don't agree with them.
Are you truly being civil and respectful if the first thing you reply is by accusing me of parroting talking points? I brought up Barnett because killing him was useful to keep him from speaking to the court. The purpose of this was spectacle, and there is really no such thing as a random hater carrying out a high profile assassination with precision. School shootings maybe, but not big spectacles like JFK, MLKjr. various presidents south of our border. Believing the official story is a mistake, especially because of the routine use of sniping our govt security agencies do. We live in a post-truth era that isn't at all right versus left.
If you’re implying that the media push of “right versus left” is tactical and unnecessarily. Inflammatory, I agree with you. But unfortunately, many in the populous have swallowed that bait, and act accordingly.
I don’t believe that mentioning you parroting talking points is un-civil, and this is part of the problem. Lack of civility implies use of profanity, violence, or hyperbolic name-calling, such as the overuse of fascist. My words were simply my observation; because you don’t like them does not make in-civil.
While Barnett’s death certainly benefited Boeing, nothing in the investigation pointed to it being a murder. Might it have been? Again, anything is possible, but to speak to that as fact without evidence incites violence in unhinged readers. And so yes, I called you out for it.
And to say that there’s no such thing as a random hater, carrying out and assassination with precision is simply ignorant. Again, sorry if I use the word that offend you, but the truth is what it is. It happened last year in Butler, it happened in Memphis in 1968, and whether you believe there were others involved or not, it also happened in Dallas in 1963.
The point is, when you let emotions rather than research, dictate your statements, you run the risk of setting off some Looney Tunes, who is willing to drink the Kool-Aid.
Conspiracies or not, who knows, but I, too, suspect that many opportunists of power will use these turbulent events to erode our evermore fragile constitutional protections. This would be the bigger tragedy.
Well stated. I am at a loss trying to understand those that celebrate Kirk’s death. In their celebration they demonstrate what a deep moral abyss they are in. I wonder how they got there. My premise is that they do not have anything to believe and cherish in their lives, they follow flawed rhetoric that makes them feel “part of something”. Those (politicians, MSM, news talking heads) espousing violence, hateful speech and action against those that do not agree need to be identified and revealed for what they are. Let the poll of publican opinion do the rest.
You're not wrong, Dave. Thanks for responding. ZL
John Barnett was silenced. He was shot in a hotel parking lot with no witnesses and declared a suicide so he wouldn't be able to speak in court about why boeing's planes were falling out of the sky. What we all saw last week was not quiet. Nobody can stop talking about it. Wall to wall media coverage, and I can hardly find a tweet about anything else nearly a week later. The silliest take I've been seeing is that this was a left/right issue. Do you know lots of lefty snipers? An alternate theory is it was someone up by the stage, which are also obviously not lefties either. Who benefits? Lots of money being thrown around over this right now. Millions of dollars for someone who was already making 400k per year. Who wants the left and right distracted over someone who is clearly been made into a martyr as most assassinations like this create. Why would anyone trust the official story? The FBI and other alphabet agencies should be prime suspects just like they were 100% responsible for the Gov Whitmer kidnapping plot, and much more. It wouldn't be the first time they used a sniper for a political goal. This so obviously has nothing to do with the left, but you all expect lefties to mourn with you, and that is also a completely unreasonable expectation. You can guess why from the Charlie Kirk quotes about starting a race war, about George Floyd and other police killings, about Palestine, and even about MLKjr. Doesn't make anyone a murderer for disliking the guy just as we can't blame Charlie Kirk for George Floyd's murder just because he was really happy about it. So ask, what is happening in the dark while everyone's eyes are on this? Are they using this to take away Constitutional protections? A lot of you are cheering for the State to do that.
Let's unpack your response, Barbara.
If you've ever read any of my writing, you'll know that I am neither a hyperbolist nor someone who automatically takes the side of the one I tend to agree with more often. I never presume Republicans are innocent of wrongdoing, nor that Democrats are always the guilty party. All I ever seek to call out is the truth, since there's no other way to fix things.
What I'm gathering from your response is that you don't - you're more content to parrot talking points which you've heard elsewhere (which doesn't mean they're always wrong, just that many people form immutable opinions based on such small and unverified samples).
As to some of your contentions, let's start with John Barnett. His death certainly didn't receive the level of coverage that Charlie Kirk's did, but I would say that's less a conspiracy than an acknowledgement of the fact that he wasn't the public figure Kirk was. And I wouldn't call his death "quiet" - I heard about it in the news when it happened, and Netflix covered it in a Boeing documentary. As for it being a covered-up murder, I wasn't the investigator, but there was video of him parking his vehicle, after which nobody entered or exited it. Could that video have been altered and the crime scene staged to cover up a murder? I guess anything's possible, but considering the number of people who would have to have played ball in that conspiracy, it seems an unlikely default conclusion to draw.
Whether there are "lots of lefty snipers" or not (and I'm sure, just with ex-military, that there are plenty) is not really a relevant reason to dismiss that likelihood. It only takes one, after all.
If I read your thought correctly, you're implying that Kirk was intentionally killed for the express purpose of making him a martyr, meaning likely by his own "side". Sorry, but that's a stretch bordering on the ridiculous. Not to say I trust everything the FBI says at all times, but there were over 1,000 witnesses there (negating any "theories" that it was someone near the stage), and it's been well established that the shot came from where they're reporting in this case. And the agencies didn't just snag some sap out of left field - he was turned in by his own family.
Has the government ever inserted itself into some nefarious shit? Of course it has, and I don't mean to imply that they're above reproach, generally. But the math you describe in this case doesn't add up.
Also, saying things like Kirk was really happy about George Floyd's murder is exactly what I meant by "...people become obsessed with the righteousness of their points of view, often without bothering to experience the source of their scorn first-hand. They’re lazily content to absorb what their preferred talking heads spoon-feed them as political pablum and make preconceived judgments that they then carve into stone." Can you actually produce something showing him expressing happiness about Floyd's death? Or are you feeding the flames by taking something he might have said about the incident, with which you disagree, and projecting your own interpretation of his motivation onto it? I challenge you to produce such evidence, and I'll apologize if you can.
Thank you for responding, Barbara. This is exactly what Kirk was striving for - civil discourse between opposing points of view. And I respect your opinions, even though I don't agree with them.
ZL
Are you truly being civil and respectful if the first thing you reply is by accusing me of parroting talking points? I brought up Barnett because killing him was useful to keep him from speaking to the court. The purpose of this was spectacle, and there is really no such thing as a random hater carrying out a high profile assassination with precision. School shootings maybe, but not big spectacles like JFK, MLKjr. various presidents south of our border. Believing the official story is a mistake, especially because of the routine use of sniping our govt security agencies do. We live in a post-truth era that isn't at all right versus left.
If you’re implying that the media push of “right versus left” is tactical and unnecessarily. Inflammatory, I agree with you. But unfortunately, many in the populous have swallowed that bait, and act accordingly.
I don’t believe that mentioning you parroting talking points is un-civil, and this is part of the problem. Lack of civility implies use of profanity, violence, or hyperbolic name-calling, such as the overuse of fascist. My words were simply my observation; because you don’t like them does not make in-civil.
While Barnett’s death certainly benefited Boeing, nothing in the investigation pointed to it being a murder. Might it have been? Again, anything is possible, but to speak to that as fact without evidence incites violence in unhinged readers. And so yes, I called you out for it.
And to say that there’s no such thing as a random hater, carrying out and assassination with precision is simply ignorant. Again, sorry if I use the word that offend you, but the truth is what it is. It happened last year in Butler, it happened in Memphis in 1968, and whether you believe there were others involved or not, it also happened in Dallas in 1963.
The point is, when you let emotions rather than research, dictate your statements, you run the risk of setting off some Looney Tunes, who is willing to drink the Kool-Aid.
Conspiracies or not, who knows, but I, too, suspect that many opportunists of power will use these turbulent events to erode our evermore fragile constitutional protections. This would be the bigger tragedy.
Now that I agree with. Thanks Tina. ZL