Charlie Kirk - so what now ?
- Thread starter the_seeker
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
And yet, what a person believes about God plays right in to their everyday decision making process whether they be on a jury or in their everyday life.
The liberals are clearly trying to pollute the jury pool by supporting the Charlie Kirk shooters just as they are doing with the guy that shot the insurance company CEO because liberals love them some evil!
Which guy is making money from Charlie Kirk being killed that personally contacted you telling you to shut up?
You got audio of that phone call so the class can hear that conversation?
I have repeatedly stated the 13 things we know as facts and the "text" messages are not one of them. This has nothing to do with me and the idea that I am taking whatever she says without discernment is proven false by the fact that I have not used text messages from the supposed killer and his friend.For those defending Owens: I 100% support asking questions, digging further and not accepting official narratives [such as covid, which is off-topic here]. I don't ever take anyone's word for it, which is exactly why I question Owens. It's a bit ironic that some of you want everything questioned and dug into... except when it comes to yourselves and your sources.How odd.
Owens was recently interviewed by CNN [Elle Reeves]. Shockingly the interviewer pretended to be a journalist for a moment -
CO: I do not believe that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. I want to be very clear on that. Whether he was involved I think the answer is yes. I think that's obvious.
ER: And your basis for saying he didn't act alone is what?
CO: I don't know, maybe the weird Fed messages that were concocted out of thin air that had no time stamp and were written like they were speaking in 1822, among other things. Their lack of an ability to answer any basic questions about what took place.
ER: But do you have any proof that the messages were made up because that would be easily proven.
CO: But they didn't put timestamps on them and Discord came out and said they didn't exist.
ER: This was supposedly text messages not Discord messages - it's my understanding from the indictment.
CO: I actually did not read that they were text messages.
CNN interview
She had no clue the messages were text, so that was her mistake. But based upon that mistake, she concluded and stated, AS FACT, that the feds made up the messages and publicly accused them of lying, covering up, dereliction of duty, etc. That's slander. Her other solid evidence was 'very strong sources' and 'leaks', so yeah... impeccable.
Maybe it has to happen to YOU before you understand how devastating it is to be publicly accused of something - without evidence - you may not have done, and you and your family have to deal with the fallout.
And they continue speculation to make more money as all of these folks have monetized their social media channels
People on both side are making money off of this and other high profile public events.
I'm surprised you were not aware of this as it's on on the down side of the internet.
You repeated 13 speculations that you cannot prove.
How post posting up actually audio or video evidence that proves what you are saying is true?
Posting videos from fellow nut job conspiracy theorists is not evidence that would be accepted in a court of law so that's out.
or you're biased by your own personal hatred of people who believe differently than you and you think anyone who believes differently than you must mean that they are okay with murder.
8 days prior to Charlie Kirk's assassination he ordered a full audit, they suspected that as much as $40 million had been embezzled from the ministry. After his assassination that audit was canceled. If funds were embezzled then that person definitely profited from his death whereas the man accused of shooting him will pay the price.
We also have whistleblowers inside of TPUSA saying there was a lot of pressure on Charlie to censor Tucker Carlson because of his stance on Israel. Charlie refused and at least two very big donors withheld their support and this took place in the month prior to the assassination. If Erika Kirk changes the stance of TPUSA concerning this issue then those donors will have profited. Then of course we saw politician after politician at the Memorial service say how much help they got from TPUSA to get elected. Since Charlie Kirk's assassination TPUSA is much more well known and has collected a tremendous amount of donations. If TPUSA gets more powerful it will help those conservative politicians they help to get elected. Those are three possible suspects who have profited, though for all we know they could be working as one. They all had motive.
There are many on the internet attacking anyone, like Candace and including Candace, that questions the official narrative on this assassination.
On this thread Standup and you are the two I can recall that have tried to silence the questions I and others have been raising. If I recall correctly you accused me of slander.
Wow. Hard to know where to start with this -
1. No, I have not tried to silence you. You are still free to speak your 'truth' and ask whatever questions you want. You have successfully been doing so for 62 pages, and no doubt you will successfully bang on for another 100 pages or so.
2. Let's recap the other issue -
You said: "Then when the guy who profited from the crime tells me to shut up, and stop asking questions, then I get very suspicious."
I asked: "Who is this "guy who profited from the crime tells me to shut up, and stop asking questions"? Who personally contacted you and told you to shut up?"
You answered: "On this thread Standup and you are the two I can recall that have tried to silence the questions I and others have been raising."
Are you saying I'm the guy who profited from the crime, and I personally contacted you and told you to shut up? Because that is exactly what you've just indicated. Care to clarify your response?
Wow you accuse someone of slander, which is a crime, but hey, you are free to commit crimes.
If I accused someone of slander I would not also say they are free to slander others.
At this point it seems to me you are not being honest and not being accountable for your own posts, so no longer interested in conversing with you until we can reconcile this issue.
This makes zero sense, and you didn't answer the question.
WHO is saying "they're being attacked" and do they realize that disagreeing with someone's view on the Internet is NOT an attack?
Yes, I also want to know how a random stranger on the internet profited from this
... and managed to personally contact @ZNP to tell him to shut up and stop asking questions. I look forward to that big reveal. So much mystery and intrigue for a friday.
This is what is so despicable about this entire discussion. It would seem that none of us have anything invested in who is guilty, who is convicted, we simply want the killer convicted and we simply want to know the truth.
But if you ask relevant questions to get to the Truth Citizen accuses you of slander likening it to someone trying to damage my reputation by saying I abuse puppies. Slander is a crime, it is a reference to illegal speech. They also hope that those on the internet like Candace will be sued for slander / or libel just as Alex Jones was sued.
In the Bible Satan is the one who slanders the saints. But when I say that Citizen is trying to shut me up all of a sudden so innocent, 'who is trying to shut you up, not me, no I support your right to ask questions'.
It makes no sense, I don't care if the guy they have in custody is ultimately found guilty of killing Charlie Kirk as long as it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Personally I think he must have been involved, that is by far the most reasonable explanation. I also believe the guy who shouted that he had shot Charlie and then took down his pants was also involved. What I am less certain of and certainly have a whole lot of questions I'd like answered before I could vote guilty is that this man actually shot Charlie or is he simply the patsy.
But I'm not going to accuse those who feel differently of slander, it isn't a crime to think that guy killed Charlie. Nor do I care what anyone thinks of Candace Owens. Love her, hate her, or perhaps you could care less about her, doesn't matter to me. So why does it matter so much to Citizen to go around accusing others of slander and then when it is undeniable that he did that why deny that you are trying to shut people up who don't agree with you?
- Status