https://www.meidastouch.com/news/charlie-kirk-podcast-launches-22-unhinged-vile-attacks-against-taylor-swift
Does this behaviour sound remotely healthy to any of you?
Her crime, apparently, is being a well known music artist with a lot of fans with politics they don't like.
So, wait, are you talking about what Kirk said, or about YOUR idea of WHY he said what he said?
Because you link to a list of things that were said, but then you give YOUR opinon on why it was said.
What is this thread about?
The article clearly states that the list is of things he or his political organization "said." Do you think they sound like the thoughts of a mentally healthy person?
shareWhere in the list does it say that her "crime" is being an artist with politics they don't like?
shareThat's Skavau's description. But at face value do you think those statements by Kirk or his organization come from a place of good mental health? I won't ask you again.
shareAt face value? Yes, it's fine. They don't like her and are not afraid to say it. Whoop Dee freaking do.
share13. Taylor Swift makes fans dress "sluttier"
Kirk claimed Swift is "dressed like a stripper" and argued that young women's lives could be miserable if they "start dressing sluttier because of Taylor Swift"
19. Taylor Swift is going to hell
Kirk complained Swift "isn't leading people to God," but to "wokeism" and speculated that she had abandoned her Christian faith. Kirk then implied Swift would be going to hell.
Neff commented that the Swift and Travis Kelce relationship could end in a "suicide pact." Kirk then commented that the covid vaccine could "make Travis Kelce drop in the middle of practice." Neff said that scenario would be "more fun."
Bowyer said the Swift concert he went to was "awful" and "miserable," complaining it was "all women and gays.
---
These guys have the social mores of Victorian women
So, you open with whining that htey are mentalling unhealthy and now you want to smear them for having old fashioned values?
Was Swift dressed like a stripper?
>So, you open with whining that htey are mentalling unhealthy and now you want to smear them for having old fashioned values?
I think grown men spending 30 minutes obsessing over a pop singer in the way that they do suggests they are genuinely not well.
>Was Swift dressed like a stripper?
No idea. I assume they think any woman who wears a bikini or wears tight clothing is "dressed like a stripper" though, because they have the social mores of Iranian Islamists.
YOur pretense that the massive pop star followed by millions of fans, is not important, is noted.
That you feel a need to be that dishonest, undermines your credibility and all your arguments.
Your assumption is noted. Unfortunately this was in the same post where you pretended that a billionaire rock star was not important enough to discuss.
SO, that statement is irrelevant because it would be an assumption, even if it is really your assumptions.
I assume that a pop star probably was dressed like a stripper. I've certainly seen her dressed as such.
>YOur pretense that the massive pop star followed by millions of fans, is not important, is noted.
So it's healthy for me, if I don't like some celebrities politics to start slagging off their appearance, attacking their personal life, suggesting they may be pass their reproductive cycle (if women and this is unbelievably misogynistic), attacking their fans, suggesting they have a "body count", and suggesting that they might be an alien? It's vile, ugly behaviour. I'm sure you would be amongst the first to complain when people attack Donald Trumps appearance, personal life etc but when its Taylor Swift, someone you don't like it suddenly becomes different.
"Posobiec suggested Swift had be "switched" out. Bowyer thinks she could be an "alien." Kirk then abruptly ended the show and stated they were out of time."
>I assume that a pop star probably was dressed like a stripper. I've certainly seen her dressed as such.
So you are also a prude who thinks that any woman who wears revealing clothes in public is "dressed as a stripper".
Another social conservative on here with the social values of Islamists
When people have attacked Trump's personal life such as his divorces, I have been the first to admit that that is a valid complaint about the guy.
Hell, and I was just discussing how old he was with a buddy of mine. It is important. He is old and he is quite possibly our next president.
Oh, and "misogynistic"? Get a life.
>When people have attacked Trump's personal life such as his divorces, I have been the first to admit that that is a valid complaint about the guy.
And attacking his appearance, the people who decided to go with him, suggesting he's an alien?
>Oh, and "misogynistic"? Get a life.
Adult men judgings a womans worth by her ability to give birth is pretty misogynistic.
1. Better than the assholes who claim he is a nazi or a racist. Which is only assholes would do. That is the really hateful and divisive shit.
2. It is weird the way you say "adult men". Would it be better in your mind, if some WOMEN were on teh panel, talking about Talyor Swift?
1. I think Trump is probably a racist. He's not a nazi, although he is admiring of autocracies and dictatorships.
2. No. Judging a woman's worth by her ability to have children is pretty much basic traditional misogyny.
Charlie Kirk himself is a weird clown anyway. Dude literally thinks witches made him sick and cries over satanism like a little child.
1. This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on anti-racism, at least for white people, since the mid 60s. AND Trump comes from a region and an ideological background that was on the right side of that issue BEFORE it was cool. Only an ass would try to inflame division by calling him racist.
2. So, why the weird focus on them being "Adult men"? Makes it sound like you are jduging their worth based on THEIR gender, and finding it wanting. Indeed, it sounds a LOT like their being men makes their opinions matter LESS than if they were women.
3. Kirk? I've seen a good deal of his vids. The way he handles himself deaing with hysterical and fascist lefties, is very impressive. I mean, the majority of you people are unable to even pretend to have a rational debate about your positions and beliefs. You've noticed that, right?
You keep stating this. It does not mean that because of that the effects of racism disappeared. So right after that agreement was reached all wrongdoings and effects that caused were righted?
Are you seriously defending Charlie Kirk now? You do realize all the lies he has spread right? The same guy who said that covid19 was a gigantic hoax? This same guy?
I do keep stating it. It is true. EVERYTIME I state it, some lib immediatetly takes my statement and "restates" it in such a way to make a strawman.
They do that, becuase they know that what I said was completely true and that it thus draws attention to how absurd it tis of them to keep acting like America and Americans are terribly racist.
When you libs act as to deny hte generations of anti-racist belief and behavior and policy of Americans, you are pissing all over the generations of not racist white Americans, who were/are on your side of this issue, supposedly.
People who fought against white racism, when white racism fought back, LITERALLY fought back.
My father in law was the first white detective to be partnered with a black detective in our rust belt city, back in the early 60s. He was happy to have done so. And he took flak because of it. Today he is a rabid Trump supporter.
When you call Trump racist thus implying that supporting him is supporting racism, you are pissing on that man that fought against racism BEFORE that consensus.
You are thus being a divisive asshole.
And yes, I am defending Kirk. Covid? LOL, you want to go to covid? Remember when it was a "Racist" conspiracy to think it came from a chinese lab? LOL.
I myself have not done that. The point remains that simply because of that partisan agreement does it mean the effects of racism suddenly disappeared once that was implemented. You know that.
I also never stated that someone was automatically racist for supporting Trump. Someone can think Trump is racist though and not necessarily think his supporters are racist. I myself do not view Trump that way but I do not think he is a good man or president. Someone does not have to support or agree with Trump, you seem to not grasp this. I did not call anyone who supported Trump racist, but I do not support him. I think he is a joke of a human being and president.
You would defend a partisan hack like Kirk. Your deflection is noted. Kirk said Covid was a hoax. That point stands. Your deflection does not change him lying about that.
Kirk said Covid was a hoax. That point stands. Your deflection does not change him lying about that.
About it being a hoax. Yes he was, the virus is real.
share1. Here is your strawman. "So right after that agreement was reached all wrongdoings and effects that caused were righted?"
That is you revealing that you cannot honestly challenge my actual point.
Why are you afraid to admit that America has a bi-partisan consensus in favor of equality for blacks?
2. On, you don't? You just ally with those that do, and support the world view that America is a systemically racist place, where whites as a group are still actively oppressing blacks soooo much and need to be constantly fought aganist by powerful government forces? AND support the poliitical side that made policy based on that belief and shoves that shit down our throats and cancels us if we dare to even try to stand up for our rights?
Geez, THANKS A BUNCH FOR THAT THEN.
Nope I am stating that fact because you are stating that to dismiss any modern claims of racism. Or that the effects might still be in place and still have an effect on certain generations of people.
How am I afraid when I agreed about the partisan agreement? I openly admitted that yes that agreement was reached. However the conversation and mic does not drop there, there is more to that issue than just stating that and walking away. Which is what you are trying to do. You want to say that drop the mic and walk away.
Also a lie from you. I do not align with people who call him racist but I do not think he is a good man. Also me saying the effects of racism still existing is not me saying the country is systematically racist currently. Your lie as well as deceit is noted.
So since you did not address my point about Kirk I am asking you are you conceding about Kirk lying? The point stands Kirk saying covid was a hoax was a lie. You tried to deflect and then after deflecting you evaded it altogether. Nice tactic there big guy.
1. We were not discussing "effects" but whether a member of the NYC upper class is likely to be racist. AND nothing I said, in any way indicated that I was making any claim that the "Effects" of racism immediately dissappeard. Thus your entire argument is now nothing but a strawman, that you are holding on to desperately even when called on it.
2. Dude. In what way are you NOT siding with them?
3. I'm not familiar with that incident, but I assume you are misresprenting him or what happened. Covid was used by your side to do a lot of damage and to oppress a lot of people. Being against that, was very much called for.
Just because someone is unlikely to be racist does not mean they can't be. You are basing that statement on likelihood and it gives you a way to dismiss someone's claim.
Where did I call Trump racist?
Lol how convenient. You are making an assumption and not investigating because it gives you an out. The point stands Kirk lied about covid. You will claim ignorance as a means to protect yourself. The fact that you dodged it shows part of you realizes I have a point.
1. You leftards are very quick to decide someone is wacist on very weak ass grounds. I am basing on that statement, that you don't get to do that, and that you need strong evidence to make a strong claim. That you need that explained, is a weird ass you thing.
2. I did not say you called him wasict, I said you sided with those that do. That you keep needing reminded of what I acually said, is a tiresome troll boi trait of yours.
3. Whatever. Everytime I see him engaging anyone, he is generally crushing some leftard that couldn't make a logical argumetn to save their lives. Which is pretty much every leftard.
You made claims without any sort of evidence. You made the claim Kirk did not lie and I caught you in a lie. You are basing something on likelihood. You do not get to dismiss something just because something is unlikely. Not how it works. Most people on average are not serial killers it does not mean that you do not investigate someone murdering someone or being a murderer just because it is not common or likely.
Nope I also did not side with the people who did. You just do not like that I disagree with you, therefore are trying to lump me in with those folks. You failed here.
Lol how convenient every time you see him? Facts are not limited to what you personally see. The point stands Kirk lied about covid being a hoax.
1. None of that is true.
2. Sure you are. Stop being silly.
3. How do you know that he did not truly believe what he said?
Lol that is it? Just deny? Yes you are dismissing someone's claim based on likelihood. It is a nice tactic I will give you that but it does not dismiss someone's claim simply because of it.
No otherwise I would agree and also call Trump racist.
Wow this tactic huh? Oh he did not know what he was saying was untrue therefore it makes it not a lie and perfectly ok? Alex Jones spread the false conspiracy that Sandy Hook victims were actors. What if he really thought they were faking it? Does that make what he did acceptable? Even if I grant you that, that is a blow to Kirk's credibility either way. Has he come out and apologized or owned up to being wrong about that like a humble human would do? No he has not.
1. No, I'm not.
2. You can support them and their actions without exactly agreeing with them on every point. That you need this explained to you, is... hard to credit. Stop playing stupid games.
3. Whoa buddy. Let's keep focus. The issue was Kirk and covid. Covid was a confued and complex issue. Plenty of people were wrong on a lot of shit, on both sides.
YOu called him a liar. That is YOU claiming that he knew something and claimed somethig else.
If someone is wrong about something, but they actually believe it, they are not LYING, they are mistaken.
That you consider that... a "tactic" is you being BATSHIT CRAZY.
Yeah that is what you are doing. Since it is not likely you get to dismiss someone's claim.
You do not know which actions I support you are again making assumptions. Just because I agree with them on certain things does it mean I agree with their actions or with them on many points. Are you playing dumb here?
Lol nice scapegoat. See you know I can not prove what he knew before he made that claim therefore you can dismiss it. Ok lets move it to your goal post. The point stands Kirk made a wrong claim about covid. That is something you can not dispute. So if Alex Jones did not know about the shootings being real does that excuse what he said about the shooting? Answer that.
Did Kirk come out and apologize for being wrong like a humble human? No he did not.
1. You are being an assshole. It is not what I did.
2. You have been supporting their idiotic and asshole narrative in this thread.
3. If you cannot reasonable show that someone was lying, then don't call them a liar. Doing otherwise is being an asshole.
I believe that is what you did. You are just attempting to disguise your deception.
No I have not. I just simply do not agree with your views or your approach. You do not even know how many things I disagree with the left on.
Okay let me alter it for you. He made a false claim. He has not apologized for it and admitted to being wrong. That is a scumbag move. The point stands his claim was false. Care to try to defend his false claim? Or is this where you run away from this point since you know you can't logically defend him making this claim?
1. My god, you are such a closed minded asshole.
2. I was not commenting on EVERYTHIGN, just the narrative you were supporting in this thread. And in this thread, you are supporting the idiotic narrative of the left.
3. Dude. To comment intelligently on this "issue" I would need to know when it was made, what the context was at that phase of the pandemic, and a full timeline of his discussions on the issue after that. This strikes me more as retarded level trivia than a valid complaint.
Ok. Likewise. You are not open minded either bud.
I am not supporting any narrative. I just challenged you when you brought up the partisan agreement. I actually agreed with you about the partisan agreement. If I was supporting the narrative wouldn't I reject the partisan agreement?
Lol so if I provide this are you going to admit Charlie Kirk was wrong? Or will you move the goal post?
1. How do you figure that?
2. This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for minorities since the mid 60s. Yet lefties push the idea that we are deeply racist if not "white supremist". Which is retarded. When you support the idea that a mainstream white political is wacist against minorities you are supporting their retarded narrative.
3. I would challenge the relevance.
Because you demonize the left rather consistently.
I agreed about the partisan agreement. You do not need to go on your soap box. If I agreed about the partisan agreement it means I do not support their narrative.
Lol see? You just can not own up to a right wing person being wrong. You made the claim that every time you see him he owns libs. Once I showed you how he was wrong you play games.
1. The left has been acting like a bunch of violent assholes for quite some time. Noticing and discussing that is not "Demonizing" anyone.
2. What is the impact of your agreement about the bi-partisan consensus on your... behavior? Cause I see none.
3. Wait. Clearly a statement that "everytime I see him" is a general statement that clearly makes no claim of omniscient ... Oh, wait. This is that thing leftards do where they pretend not to understand how general statements work.
BORING.
Please stop pretending to be retarded.
And noticing the January 6th event is not demonizing the right.
I did not call the country racist now did I? You assumed I did is what I find funny.
Lol no I just noticed how selective you were. I could say every time I see a certain leftist they own a conservative. You would say the exact same thing back. Mighty convenient you only see Kirk in a positives light and he just so happens to be conservative. Somebody like you would not be honest if they saw Kirk get owned in a debate. I said nothing about it being omniscient. You are trying to twist words.
1. Nice change of subjecgt. Very cowardly of you.
2. Complete non answer noted. Very cowardly of you.
3. Pointless twaddle.
No it was a quid pro quo. Every negative action should be noticed and criticized no matter which group does it.
Your dismissal is cowardly. Do you sleep well at night?
Again you got absolutely debunked here. Thanks for playing you lost this one pal.
Jones comment didn’t kill anyone; the man also apologized to the families.
The establishment took a variant of the flu and labeled it as covid and then contributed most non-covid deaths to the covid to falsely prop-up the numbers; hospitals, clinics and doctors were funded for that.
All that so they can push the deadliest vaccine in human history.
They profited from the death-shot but they are going to profit ten times more from the ‘damage claims’. The vax has killed millions and injured billions. Where is the apology? Oh that’s right; an apology would mean admission of guilt and accountability.
Oh so the apology made up for the death threats and harassment they received?
Lol you have no idea what you are talking about. My parents work in the medical field bud. All vaccinated and no deaths' in my family which is huge. Enough with the lies.
Because parents have never lied to their children, lol.
shareI have seen my family members get the vaccine. I was with them when they got it. So no try again.
shareDid you misunderstand?
I was not referring to them not getting it, I was referring to them lying about others dying from it. Not everyone that got the shot died, obviously.
Btw, nice try with that deflective-backpedaling and changing it from “parents work in the medical field" to "I have seen my family members get the vaccine.".... Any more bullshit up your sleeves?
Lol nice try but I caught you. My parents work in the medical field they told me daily about what was going on during covid. I should believe you over my parents? Not going to happen you do not have that kind of credibility.
Lol how can two things not be true at once? My parents work in the medical field and I have seen family members get the vaccine. No deaths in the family. So are we done here or do you want to display your foolishness more? I did not backpedal an inch. Nice deceptive tactic but you are dismissed.
1. None of this somehow disqualifies the many racist comments Trump has said over his life. I'll call him whatever the fuck I like.
2. Again: Judging a woman's worth by her ability to have children is pretty much basic traditional misogyny.
3. https://www.rawstory.com/charlie-kirk-witches/
1. "Many racist comments" my ass. Give me your best example. LOL. What a load of shit you are talking.
2. Said the man who judged these men by their being men.
3. You want to dismiss all men who have had spirtitual beliefs in history? Say goodbye to all of civilization. When you are that selective in your.... "reasoning?", it makes no sense.
1. https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history.
All of it is sourced.
2. I was more pointing out them being grown men, not children, judging someone's egg count.
3. I want to dismiss all "men" that in the 21st century genuinely believe that witches exist, yes. Charlie Kirk exists now, not in the 14th century. I also dismiss people who believe the earth is flat.
1. Dude. I asked you for your best example. A link is not your example, a link to a LIST is a Gish Gallop logical fallacy. Don't be an ass.
2. Yep. As though their being men, somehow made their words matter less.
3. I like that you admit that at SOME point in the past, one could have spiritual beliefs and still be respected. So at what point in history, does having spiritual beliefs marginalize you, in your opinion?
1. There are many listed there. Take your pick.
2. Not what I meant at all. But they still are misogynistic scumbags.
3. People knew less and we obviously hold people in the 14th century to different standards that we do now. Charlie Kirk is a paranoid delusional little crybaby who wets his pants over 'satanism'.
It would be pathetic to worry about witches probably by the 19th century, to be honest. At the latest.
1. Your refusal to make a serious response is a defense mechanism. Your logical fallacy response is invalid. In the real world, Trump spent his entire life in a region that was on the right side of the Equalityf for minorities even BEFORE the consensus. The idea that he is racist is an extreme idea, that requires firm proof to support. I have had plenty of lefties try to support it. THeir attempts are pathetic. They look stupid when they try. You are right to just hold to logical fallacies to avoid doing that.
2. Your desire to have spokesmen for you ideology, that are above criticism is denied. She entered the political arena and she is a valid target.
3. BUT, the witches and the satanists, those people you respect, don't you?
1. Pick a claim and deal with it. I'm not interested in the environment Trump grew up in. It's not relevant to the claim about his own attitude.
2. I never said they can't criticise her. I said that them focusing on her worth as a woman based on her egg count is pretty basic misogynistic language. I assume you get upset when people insult Trump for his weight, or his looks or making fun of him but apparently when it's done to Taylor Swift that's just blowback for "entering the political arena".
3. No. Witches and Satanists can be stupid as well.
1, It is YOUR job to not use logical fallacies like the Gish Gallop logical fallacies.
2. His background is completetly relevant to judging the likelyhood that he is racist. And in this country, which has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for minorities since the mid 60s, the majority of whites are unlikely to be racist.
3. You say that now, but it if were some tree hugging leftard, talkign shit about Mother Gia and Woman Energies, and agreeeing with you on politics, you would support her and embrace her.
1. This is rich coming from you. There's plenty of write-ups on Trumps history of racist comments. Deal with them, or do not.
2. By this logic, someone who is openly a member of the KKK isn't racist because they were also born and bought up in the USA. Bigbrains. And I said nothing about the "majority of whites".
3. No, I would not. You continue to demonstrate how little you know about what I think. I have no time for 'woo'.
1. Ah, the old logical fallacy of where there is smoke there must be fire. Nicely played. I understand. I take it that this is not your first rodeo. How many times did some conservative lure you into trying to defend your slander against various republicans and whipped you like a red headed stepchild? You are wise to avoid honest discussion.
2. Making a general statement about a group, leaves open the possibily of specific information that changes it. That I have to explain such concepts to you is you pretending to be brain damaged.
The fact remains, Trump's background in this country in this era makes it unlikely he would be racist. It is on YOU to support your slander. I have had lefties try. You are wise to avoid such a trap. You would look stupid if you tried.
3. Who is your favorite intellectual?
1. Again, these statements are documented.
2. I didn't make a statement about a "group". I have made comments about Trump. Your logic is that Trump can't possibly be racist because he was bought up in the USA. It's obviously absurd because of the many people bought up in the USA who are racists.
3. Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell. Most secular, anti-theist, atheist philosophers.
1. By "documented" you mean he said one thing, and a mindless herd of leftards insist it means something wacist. THe fact that you are afraid to give a single good example, shows that you know this.
2. My logic is that Trump, with his background in this country is unlikedly to be racist. That you needs that explained to you, is you pretending to be brain damaged. This nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for minorities since hte mid 60s.
3. MMm, endorsed the re-election of GW. Good on you....
1. I've given you the sources.
2. Yes, as I said: Your logic is that Trump can't possibly be racist because he was bought up in the USA. It's obviously absurd because of the many people bought up in the USA who are racists.
3. And endorsed Obama. Christopher Hitchens was a liberal hawk. Although that's not got much to do with why I liked him.
1. You gave me a gish gallop fallacy when I asked for your best example. That is your brain dealing with the fact that it knows your position is weak as shit.
2. That would be a CONCLUSION, not logic, AND it is not my conclusion. You are fighting with a strawman of your own invention becasue your snide and weak ass implications of Trump being supposedly wacist, are so weak ass, that you know you cannot defend them.
3. An atheist too. Do you lump Christianity in with irrational beliefs like Witches?
1. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-haitian-immigrants-entering-us-probably-have-aids-death-wish-2021-10?r=US&IR=T#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20he%20reportedly%20said,that%20he%20used%20those%20words.
2. So obviously if that is not your conclusion then being bought up in the USA is no guarantee of someone not being racist.
3. I'm an atheist. And yeah, for the most part.
1. So, you have nothing. Got it. I hope you drop that stupid shit position moving foward.
2. OMG. Doesnt it bother you to pretend to be so retarded? I mean, even if you don't mink looking like a retard, doesn't it offend our lefty sensibilities to be so "retard phobic"?
3. But, Western civilization, including modern "liberalism" is based on Christianity. So.... where does that leave you? Are you living in a cave wearing bear skins?
1. Literally gave you a link.
2. Just baseless insults, as usual.
3. We're a post-christian society. And it's debateable how much of liberalism derives from Christianity, which as seen its worse instincts and tendencies muted by secular social drift over hundreds of years. But most countries have religious residue that influence their backbone. It does not justify the validity of their supernatural beliefs.
1. I asked you for YOUR example. You don't have one. Because you know that all tthe examples are complete shit, but you are too much of a lefty zealot to admit it.
2. Dude. YOU are the one pretending to be retarded to avoid honest and serious responses. i am asking you to stop that.
3. Do you believe all men are created equal?
1. That is an example I'm using. You wanted one, you got one.
2. As a rule, I tend to ignore all of your requests because I'll do what I like.
3. We're not "created". But I do assert the concept of human rights and civil liberties.
1. What was it?
2. That's fine. I will continue to point out how retarded you are being at each step and that you are doing it, because you, on some level, know that you cannot defend your political beliefs with Truth.
3. That is based on teh CHRISTIAN belief that we are all created as children of God, the same. Your rejection of Christianity is hypocritcial.
1. Scroll up to the link.
2. That's fine. I'll still dow whatever I like.
3. So if I accept the idea of human rights, I must be a christian? Is that what you're claiming? Have you considered I accept the concept of them independently?
I don't believe in a god. I literally CAN'T be a christian because I don't believe in its core requirement.
Also, no, it's not. Christianity throughout much of history rejected many human rights we now regard as normal. Modern human rights was shaped heavily by the enlightenment and secular movements. Yes, there was some crossover and many liberal christian groups existed - but every society will have religious historicity to their culture.
1. Links are to support points, not make them.
2. And I will call you on your bad beahvior.
3. Wow. And again you lose the thread. YOU DON'T GET TO ASK ME TO DISMISS KIRK AND HIS IDEAS, while YOU ARE ACCEPTING CHRISTIAN IDEALS. THAT WAS THE POINT.
1. Too bad. Deal with that point or don't.
2. Okay. So?
3. I reject them as intrinsically Christian ideas.
And are you saying I'm a hypocrite because I'm not a christian?
What’s your problem? She said she would leave the country if Trump was elected.
shareOkay. So? Does that justify the obsession these guys have over her?
shareYes it does. She entered the political arena so she can be attacked. Think for once, I know it can be hard.
shareI never said they couldn't. I said it makes them look like disturbed troubled misogynists, especially when they judge a woman's worth by their ability or willingness to have children.
Charlie Kirk himself is a weird boy anyway. Dude literally thinks witches made him sick and cries over satanism like a little child.
Those celebrities continue to say that they will leave but they never do, she is another shit-talker simping for the establishment.
shareSwift is a puppet cult member for the establishment. She lies for them.
shareHas the Satanic rituals during concerts to boot!
There's the image of a Black Metal Band...then there's outright cult shit with the audience participating.
"Satanic ritual"
Lmao
Are you that much of a delicate little flower that you wet yourself over stage performances from pop artists?
I don't care about your weak insults.
Marilyn Manson wearing a strap around his nutsack behind a lectern pretending to be a preacher saying to us we were "all his children now" was weird, but he didn't make the audience participate in some satanic ritual in-between songs....for over 30 minutes.
When it involves the audience, is not part of the actual concert, it's no longer a "performance". The only reason it's done is to try and push people away from God.
>Marilyn Manson wearing a strap around his nutsack behind a lectern pretending to be a preacher saying to us we were "all his children now" was weird, but he didn't make the audience participate in some satanic ritual in-between songs....for over 30 minutes.
What "satanic ritual" are you even referring to that she did, my precious little princess? Are you an 8 year old little girl who hides behind the sofa during horror movies?
>When it involves the audience, is not part of the actual concert, it's no longer a "performance". The only reason it's done is to try and push people away from God.
Provide a source for your claims here.
And who gives a flying fuck if people are leaving god
Are you an 8 year old little girl
[deleted]
I don't care about Satanism
Where did I support child grooming? Are you suggesting me mocking him as having the sensibilities of a child is evidence of support for child grooming? Provide evidence for this slander.
Looks like someones told the magas to get all up in swifts grill .
probly DJTs unofficil pr / policymakers the rabid right media grifters , like this kirk guy.
see how they rush to condemn her
The Right is suffering from some major TSDS.
share