Charlie Kirk shot, another conservative assassination attempt.

[Devo]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Well then you'll have to forgive me. Erika Kirk forgave Tyler Robinson, after all.

Sweet lady, that one

So sweet, sympathy for CKs wife, are you sure its not empathy?

[HDGristle]

Mix. I've lost loved ones tragically, but not in that manner and not as a public figure.

[oldman2525]

heres the difference between the democrats and the republicans

here is the vote for the resolution

On June 25, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the politically motivated attacks in Minnesota that resulted in the murders of State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman. The resolution also honored the lives of the Hortmans and expressed support for State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette Hoffman, who were critically injured in the same attacks.
Details of the resolution
Passed unanimously: The resolution (H.Res. 519) passed the House unanimously, with broad bipartisan support.
Strong message against political violence: Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain stated, "Political violence has no place in our country... We must all condemn these attacks and send a clear message that violence and intimidation against our elected officials are unacceptable".
Honoring the victims: The measure honored the lives of Melissa and Mark Hortman and recognized Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, for their recovery.
Call for unity: The resolution also called on all people to reaffirm their commitment to a safe, civil, and peaceful democracy.

all republicans voted for it

but when the resolution to condemn the assination of charlie kirk was presented..................... .... 58 democrats voted no

wow, who is the haters?

[HDGristle]

95 Dems voted for it. So a substantial majority.

Do we know why the 58 voted against or are you assuming?

Did 58 vote against or were 38 of them "present" votes?

[oldman2525]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

95 Dems voted for it. So a substantial majority.

Do we know why the 58 voted against or are you assuming?

Did 58 vote against or were 38 of them "present" votes?

so what if it was a substancial majority? ok so there are 58 disgusting pigs on the democratic side.

give a reason that anyone would vote against. read the resolution

[eyecu2]

I missed the part where Charlie was elected by anyone to any office. Otherwise I think all congressmen voted that political violence to office holders was 100% not ok.

Not that kirks death is ok. But it's just a significant point he was not elected to any role.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by oldman2525

so what if it was a substancial majority? ok so there are 58 disgusting pigs on the democratic side.

give a reason that anyone would vote against. read the resolution

38 voted present. That's neither for nor against. So that leaves you at 20 and it's up to them to explain why.

[oldman2525]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

38 voted present. That's neither for nor against. So that leaves you at 20 and it's up to them to explain why.

bullshit and you know it. voting present means no but you dont have the guts to do it

and even by your breakdown , 20 is 20 too many

democrats are nothing but haters

[oldman2525]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

I missed the part where Charlie was elected by anyone to any office. Otherwise I think all congressmen voted that political violence to office holders was 100% not ok.

Not that kirks death is ok. But it's just a significant point he was not elected to any role.

it was a resolution against the violence and the murder of kirk
it has nothing to do whether he was an elected offical or not eye

[HDGristle]

Present means present. And you have an example of 95 non-haters but want to use 20 people who didn't vote the way you wanted them to in order to smear all Dems as haters. It's bad logic laden with blind, hyperbolic, hyperpartisan hate

Charlie loved free speech. They exercised theirs. No mountain, just molehills and whattaboutism

Be the change, Oldman. You're channeling more of your inner-Bannon and inner-Jones than your inner-Kirk, rn

[oldman2525]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Present means present. And you have an example of 95 non-haters but want to use 20 people who didn't vote the way you wanted them to in order to smear all Dems as haters. It's bad logic laden with blind, hyperbolic, hyperpartisan hate

Charlie loved free speech. They exercised theirs. No mountain, just molehills and whattaboutism

Be the change, Oldman. You're channeling more of your inner-Bannon and inner-Jones than your inner-Kirk, rn

guess what pumkin, im expressing my opinion. present means you aint got the guts to vote. i read the resolution. nothing it there in any way would make someone vote "present" or no unless your pre concieved hate,racism or polictical stance made you do so

inner bannon and inner jones lol? look in the mirror son, your hatred for the right is well known as well as your defense of the left

and fyi i didnt say all democracts but alot are. hyperpartisan hate? lmfao, coming from you and your posts. look in the mirror hd before preaching the gospel

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by oldman2525

i didnt say all democracts but alot are.

Oh, OK.

Originally Posted by oldman2525

democrats are nothing but haters

Hey, wait a minute...

[oldman2525]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Oh, OK.



Hey, wait a minute...

hey, right of center (god i love that horseshit)

if i say liberals are the ones causing violence, that doesnt mean all liberals, if i say democracts are haters, that isnt all democrats, if i say all democracts are haters, thats all democracts

grow up

[HDGristle]

I'm just parsing your words like Charlie Kirk would have. No need to get hostile when someone probes about an implied all because you left out the clarifying words while tossing a partisan smear while also trying to redefine what present means

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by Green_Mountain

Who confessed to what crime?

Told his dad and a church elder.