The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CC27 on October 14, 2025, 07:30:57 AM
-
SocialDemocrat61 (5,962 posts)
Happy Charlie Kirk Remembrance Day
(https://i.imgflip.com/a91nw2.jpg)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220719269
I loathe these losers with a white hot passion
-
All quotes taken out of context, as the left always does for people such as President G.W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, President Trump, and on and on...
They believe the lies.
-
A bit refined:
All quotes taken out of context, as the left always does for people such as President G.W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, President Trump, and on and on...
They believe their own lies.
A text out of context is a pretext. Progs' need to lie reveals what they are.
An example of how context matters:
Fact check: Has Charlie Kirk clarified or retracted his statement about the Civil Rights Act?
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/charlie-kirk-civil-rights-act-statement-ec7b18 (https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/charlie-kirk-civil-rights-act-statement-ec7b18)
1. What Kirk Actually Said and How Reporters Framed It — Pulling the Claim Apart
Reporting identifies a clear claim: Charlie Kirk called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a “mistake,” and his stated rationale centered on the emergence of what he described as a permanent bureaucratic apparatus (DEI-style structures) that, in his view, weakened constitutional freedoms. The principal account emphasizes that Kirk’s critique targeted the institutional fallout—administrative mechanisms and regulatory structures—rather than an explicit repudiation of the Act’s anti-discrimination goals. This framing matters because it separates an objection to procedural effects from opposition to civil rights principles, and the reporting makes that separation explicit.
...
3. Why Contextual Framing Changes the Meaning — Bureaucracy Versus Principle
The reporting’s emphasis on bureaucratic consequences shifts the interpretive frame: characterizing the Act as a “mistake” on institutional grounds implies a policy critique about administrative design and long-term regulatory impact, rather than a moral rejection of civil rights aims. That distinction is central to assessing public reaction and political ramifications because critics of the law’s implementation can be arguing for reform of enforcement mechanisms, not for repeal of anti-discrimination protections. The published analyses highlight this nuance even while noting the provocative shorthand he used.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 set the stage for "Affirmative Action" and mandating businesses to record employees' ethnicities (records used in future lawsuits). Inevitably this became quotas and discrimination against whites, and later, against east, southeast, and south Asians. Setting up and permitting this discrimination was an absolute contradiction of the purported purpose of the Act. Ditto mandating that Congressional and other government districts be drawn to create majority-black and -Hispanic districts (because a white person could not possibly represent the interests of blacks, etc. :thatsright: ).
Personally, I regard "Affirmative Action" as creating a Whites Need Not Apply context where "Affirmative Action" is applied. E.G., in my five layoffs, I have NEVER considered applying for any government job. IMO, at all levels the process is close enough to Whites Need Not Apply that hoping to find exception(s) would be a waste of my time. Just to be clear, I do not claim to have been harmed by this, only that it narrowed my job searches.
-
If it wasn't for lies , complaints, and 'give me free stuff', modern dem/lefty wouldn't have much to say at all.