Charlie Kirk assassinated at Utah campus event

Status
Not open for further replies.
Show me the exact receipts of attacks on the bill of rights that already weren't solidified in policy / law before this event. Random morons on Twitter saying stuff isn't "attacking" in this specific context. Show me the official actions or policy proposals.
You've seen how CK responded to the south Park and you think this is how he would react to this? He would say you are literally shooting youself in the foot.
 
You've seen how CK responded to the south Park and you think this is how he would react to this? He would say you are literally shooting youself in the foot.
So you have nothing. Got it.

Show me where the government is currently attacking the bill of rights with proposals / policies that weren't already in place for a long time. The Kimmel and fcc thing? Even if the fcc took him off the air, he directly violated fcc policy by knowingly lying about a dangerous topic. That policy has been around for a long time, just because it's being enforced doesn't make it an attack on the bill of rights.
 
Last edited:
The FCC tweeted. ABC could have told them to pound sand and fought any actual censure in court. They didn't because Kimmel refused to tone it down, and he is simply not worth defending. The dude is a loser shit stirrer with an audience smaller than Asmongold.

The only negative is that the entire situation brought attention away from the thousands of purely evil leftists that were supporting of political assasination. The focus should be on these people.

That's called coercion and it's illegal and unconstitutional when the government coerces private companies into doing things.
 
That's called coercion and it's illegal and unconstitutional when the government coerces private companies into doing things.

Government agencies enforce regulations on a daily basis and yeah, they tell companies to comply or face the consequences. I don't think the question here is whether the FCC could do what they did, but rather if they should.
 
Last edited:
Government agencies enforce regulations on a daily basis and yeah, they tell companies to comply or face the consequences. I don't think the question here is whether the FCC could do what they did, but rather if they should.

I think the case here is that the FCC gave a vague threat without specifics. If the threat were a fine, that's fine. But this company is facing a merger that needs FCC approval.

"We can do this the easy way or the hard way."

Hard way implying that merger is not getting approved.

Can't have government agencies acting like mob bosses. I'm not sure what reality that's legal and appropriate. Maybe in China.
 
I think the case here is that the FCC gave a vague threat without specifics. If the threat were a fine, that's fine. But this company is facing a merger that needs FCC approval.

"We can do this the easy way or the hard way."

Hard way implying that merger is not getting approved.

Can't have government agencies acting like mob bosses. I'm not sure what reality that's legal and appropriate. Maybe in China.

Yeah, he was vague, but he did mention the license they grant. Don't recall him saying anything about a merger. Either way, agencies that are charged with enforcing laws have to have some teeth. Lots of folks wouldn't pay their taxes if the IRS didn't act like "mob bosses" if they didn't. Of course, they ain't all powerful and that's why we have courts. If ABC really wanted to push back on this, I think they could have and won....easily.
 
Disney lost 4 billion dollars over this. Sorry Disney

According to Culture Base (September 20, 2025), the company's market value reportedly dropped by $3.87 billion overnight. While Disney has not officially confirmed the figures, multiple outlets have noted a decline in stock prices.

The link goes to a tweet. Is there any info. on Culture Base? I can see in their bio that they're a news and media company, but this is the first time I've heard of them.

Aside from that, I would be surprised if Disney confirms anything.
 
You don't see why that's an issue for the govt to be deciding? We already saw the flip side of this during Covid and it wasn't pretty.
After thinking about it some more, I'm now on the same page. It would send a dangerous precedent for the dems to exploit should they ever be in power again. I still think there should be some legal recourse though. Perhaps a civil lawsuit, kind of like how Trump sued CBS for deceptive editing of Kamala's interview.
 
Immediately out on bail…?
Gavin Newsom GIF by GIPHY News
 
You don't have to believe in any made up boogeyman to be a decent human.
That was my biggest disagreement with Charlie and every other Christian. That morality needs god to exist.

I'm an atheist and i consider myself a decent human being. I don't kill people, i don't steal, i don't torture animals, i wait for train passengers to get out before i get in and always use headphones in public spaces to listen to music.

Basically, i try to treat people the same way i would like to be treated by them, in order for everyone to co-exist in peace within a society. If everyone was a shitty person who only thinks of their own self, society would collapse. It's a very simple concept. And sure, some fail safe mechanisms are needed to make sure the radical few won't mess everything for the rest, such as laws. And sure, maybe some more simple minded people absolutely need an invisible big brother to keep themselves in line at all times. But Charlie was not a simple minded person so it was always so frustrating to me he absolutely needed God for him to be a decent person.
 
So much debate and fighting over the dominant hands of people. But has any real solution been proposed yet? Banning guns or more reasonable oversight on them is obviously out of the question. So maybe just ban or oversight the ammunition?
 
Last edited:


It looks like after further investigation with the help of the FBI, he'll remain in jail. Shocking that he was released on bail in the first place, though - the building was occupied when he fired into it.

Shooting suspect obtains legal counsel, is now ineligible for bail

Defense attorney Mark Reichel confirmed to KCRA 3 that he is representing Hernandez Santana, but did not have a statement after his first release from jail. KCRA 3 has reached out to him again about the new arrest.

Hernandez Santana is set to appear in federal court Monday at 2 p.m., the FBI told KCRA 3.

The new jail documents note that Hernandez Santana is on a "federal hold" and is ineligible for bail.

Jail records also show him due in Sacramento Superior Court Tuesday at 3 p.m.

Source.
 
Last edited:


'I demand counseling for the kids who were hurt by Charlie Kirk's death that (the teacher) dissed,' Tim Bodnar said

'He can have free speech, he just can't have a job on taxpayer money!' he continued

It appears he went on a bit of rant, but he's right about counseling. I hope the numerous children who have been exposed to these kinds of unhinged people do get the support they need. It's unconscionable for a teacher to expose vulnerable kids to their 'beliefs' like this. There's just no reason, justifiable or not, to do so. The teacher who made those comments is on leave, but several people insist she should be fired. Considering it was a board member who slapped the phone out of Bodnar's hand (when he tried to record the meeting), it's unclear whether this will happen.

Note: It's not stated clearly whether it was a social media post or otherwise but, given the reactions by parents and other concerned individuals, kids were exposed to those comments.
 
Last edited:
He would be against the govt. forcing it, not ABC making a business decision.

Sure, but I think they're both somewhat directly correlated in this case. ABC and Nextar directly looking to grease the palms for their upcoming respective mergers/deals.

Poor showing all 'round, imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom