Sir Ralph

I’ve got good links at the club and the scouting team are looking at this guy seriously. Bags of potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Carrillo

Yes exactly, so the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it covers self defence so what I said was correct.

There is case law on the Second Amendment that says otherwise (Chat GPT never cross references case law 😉). If you look up District of Columbia v Heller (2008). It’s sort of by the by with regards to the point about Kirk anyway

Yes he did - you quoted that bit correctly. In the UK that would seem to be an unusual statement and in parts of the US people may disagree with it. In other parts it wouldn’t be as the Second Amendment is seen as sacred for various reasons, including to protect life and property. Again, of all the hours of videos debating sensitive and controversial subjects, this is all people ever quote but there are lots of videos of him respectfully debating people and actually being empathetic to this with different views. Hence why I fail to see why anyone would say he is a nasty piece of work or stupid as the evidence doesn’t stack. Seems to me that politically people disagree with his standpoint and therefore are looking to throw mud

@JohnnyShearer2.0 here you go. I may have jumped the gun assuming your view so apologies. This was the start of it. I’m employed so didn’t go through the full list. However the point being that I couldn’t find a single quote which was actually said or was taken completely out of context

Not really - my view is he didn’t say anything really bad. You seem to think he did. I can’t prove a negative. You provide a quote where he said something bad and let’s see the context. As they say - innocent until proven guilty or maybe you don’t take that approach? If he was such a disgusting human being I’m sure you will have multiple quotes or videos to show I’m incorrect so be my guest

He didn’t say that actually - he says we should an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence. He then said the Americans won’t leave in a utopian society with no gun deaths. So again, facts are important not making things up

Fair enough. I suspect they haven’t actually listened to his stuff. When he died there was a list of all his terrible statements that he had made that got debunked one by one. Essentially they were either made up or out of context

What did he actually say that was controversial though? I see people saying this but they have googled it or read some politically biased article. When you watch any of his videos he says anything but that 99.9% of the time. Seems like a right dick in this -

Of all the hours of videos this is the only one that ever gets quoted. You haven’t probably even watched that video. He actually talks about reducing gun provision. Anyway you were factually incorrect in what you said then so well done on shifting your position. I’ve provided the link for that video as I suspect you haven’t watched it but have a view regardless:

Factually incorrect unfortunately for you. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/charlie-kirk-shot-gun-violence-video-utah-b2825263.html

No I didn’t but Trump plays to the audience he is in front of. I don’t really care what he said. You are focusing on an incredibly minor matter when the key point he had a major role in unlocking this complex conflict which you should be giving him credit for. It’s bizarre you saying he is an embarrassment when he has just achieved this.

He may have made what you perceive to be an uneducated comment in that instance that doesn’t make him stupid. I suspect he was smarter than you or I. Just because you don’t agree with someone they can still be smarter than you

Thanks for your help with that one. There are multiple differences between someone who can articulate a considered point in debate in discussion with somebody with an opposing view (even if you disagree with it) and a maniac on a one-way rant on tik-tok.

You're really scratching with this - desperate times.....

They are both but the insinuation of saying that she is only Jewish suggests that her view had more weight as a person criticising their own country. If she is Palestinian Jewish, her heritage and background maybe more Palestinian, which explains a different context to her actions. She obviously isnt very bright anyway because destroying a shrine to hostages isnt really tackling her key objection which is the death of Palestinians.

There are plenty of British people who say and do dumb stuff not in the interests of their own country. Doesn’t take away the fact that they are still dumb though. It says she is a Palestinian Jew rather than Jewish.

He was very good against Derby too. MotM in my opinion. Maybe he is starting to grow into the season. A guy who I play football with is a Wednesday fan and said he was their best player last season. We should be breaking the bank to sign him up for a contract extension (if he is open to it).

He was quality - best player on the pitch. Less than 2 years left on his contract. One year left by end of this season. Suspect he will use that to leverage a move away unfortunately as he is starting to look class

oh dear, I cant even lift myself to justify the difference between the two.

She’s just some looney ranting on TIk Tok….didnt really make any point well. Join the queue of hundreds of thousands of loonies my dear and please calm down

I love the fact you now have a begrudging respect for him. Bet you now have a MAGA hat you secretly wear at home on Saturday night whilst watching Strictly😉

This is the original article, only 12 years old. Maybe he could growth or remove people's manhoods too? If he doesnt believe in basic facts I suppose anything is possible in his world.... https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/

Sorry I meant the Whelk brigade but I’m sure they are the same thing🤣