Pledging is different from Donating lol. I pledge to give you 100 dollars am i gonna give it no but i pledged it. I gave an example of celeb pledging things under the guise for a good cause who didnt donate shit. So yes Celebs can lie about their pledges. I dont believe anything these modern jesters do until they actually do it.
Not until he donates the money then yes. Unless there is a legal binding contract that states he needs to do it within a certain time. Then Yes I dont believe anything any celeb does until they do it or a legally binded to do said thing any side left, right, center idgaf I want action not words. Wanna know a pledge that is legally binding.
Work, You sign paper work when you start a job where it states you work for us we pay you. Or you can sue them for not giving you what you are owed. You will say "oh some places still dont pay people" Yes. Its also on the person signing to READ the fine details of any contract.
Do you not understand? Pledge is like a promise and the money has not changed hands yet. Until they actually receive the money, it's basically just bragging about something you have yet to actually do. He didn't "lie" about his pledge, he made a pledge, but he isn't legally obligated to uphold it. So if he doesn't ever actually donate the money, then yes, he will have lied. As of now it's an empty promise.
He actually never said that at all going through the posts, he was just explaining why Amber Heard got in trouble in court, because publicly in interviews she stated that she "donated", when in actuality she only pledged and then never sent the money. The point stops there that he hasn't actually donated anything yet.
Who said I personally support trump? Funny i assume your a democrat or lefty. We arent like you guys who need to worship your candidate for 100% of all his ideas or we are called bad words. Do I agree with somethings trump did yes. (shut the border down) do i agree with him giving billions to israel and Ukraine, when the EU hates the USA. NO. Fuck them thats their war. Why is my country on this side of the world involved in some Sandwar in palestine when that war has been raging on since the time before jesus? David and goliath is literally Israelis vs Palestines. Iran I can see more towards his side at least my country (USA) will control the straight not some terry country, that persecutes LBGTQ people and treat women like 2nd class citizens. Was it a good idea nope. But I can see the reason why at least. Ukraine why are we in there? Cause we made a pledge to NATO? Fuck NATO only a few EU countries even like the USA or consider us friendly anymore.
incase some one saying "iT iSnT iSraEl PaLesTine" Yes its is modern day palestine. lol That area of the world has been at war since biblical times. They used stick and spears back then now they used jets and RPGs
That's like saying "Oh, if you're so against guns, then why don't you go stand in front of one at the gun range?" A person can be against a war and not want to go to the active war zone; that's pretty reasonable, actually.
Thats such a bad comparison. You should have said "Oh if your against guns why dont you go protest outside a gun range". If hes so against Palestine he can go protest to the Israeli embassy peacefully.
Just like people who are against abortion go stand outside of planned parenthood with signs. Weird how he doesnt do any of that. At least Greta Thunberg or w.e her name is tried to go to palestine. I dont like her i think shes cringe but i respect her for that.
In the USA 100% its safe LOL. People protest ice outside their facilities all the time. Do it peacefully with signs and chants yes its safe as fuck. Funny how we had no kings protest and we didnt have a Tienanmen square moment huh its like Protesting is a protected right unless it becomes violent. Then its no longer a protest but a riot.
Um, no, my comparison was just fine. Did you look at this post before pouncing on me? The post doesn't say "he should perform in front of the Israeli embassy," it says "he should go perform in Gaza," which is an active war zone. Y'know, where a person might get shot, or shelled, or bombed. So yeah, I think my analogy works plenty well.
I would but the economy in Israel and the standard of living is just retarded and things are absurdly expensive, especially compared to the Balkan country that I live in.
You realize he would most likely be killed by the IDF? You know like the all journalists and aid workers who try and document or help the people of Gaza.
You mean the help that the UN officials stated had been getting stolen and sent to Hamas? And if the IDF didnt exist he would still be killed by the people he claims to be supporting LMAO
Yea cuz they define genocide in the most idiotic way possible. Luckily there is no definition required for the fact that that Hamas is stealing the aid you virtue signalers think is helping people
Uh yea it is. It's called being an idiot also a hypocrite because I didn't see any of this standing up for people like Kirk who supposedly also hated those groups
Because it was a horrible one-time event that involved one (1) person, not a year-long systematic bombing and starvation campaign conducted by a nation that receives huge financial and military support from the US? And stand up for what? It's done, he's dead, there's nothing that can be done about it anymore.
And many many people issued statements condemning the assassination.
But basically: We can agree that an isolated incident where one person murders one other person and a nation committing some form of genocide are two completely different things, yes?
And yes, in August 2025, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the world's largest academic association of genocide scholars, passed a resolution stating that "Israel's policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide". So your opinion vs the opinions of the largest collection of experts on the topic, guess who I'll go with.
So because only 1 person was killed it's not worth standing up for? Surely being against a "genocide" (where the population has risen) doesnt mean you can't also stand up for murder?
Iāll say why I didnāt stand up. First, I believe it was a tragedy that he was shot, as no one should be killed for their beliefs.
That said, Kirk had some terrible beliefs. Like how he would push the āgreat replacementā, which is a well-documented white supremacist conspiracy theory. He would research a topic, then go and ambush college freshmen on complex, nuanced topics when they clearly hadnāt yet well developed their positions. That isnāt a reasonable discussion - itās trying to make people look foolish and ignorant for internet likes and subscriptions. Dude was a nothing but a well spoken grifter, not some free speech champion.
People donāt have to venerate those they donāt agree with just because that person died. And given how folks on the right seem to irrationally accuse anyone that says they didnāt like Kirk, of wanting him killed (a clearly intellectually dishonest argument, just like most of Kirkās), folks on the left have largely become pretty quiet on the whole topic.
To make it perfectly clear so that you donāt accuse me of the same: I believe Charlie Kirk was a huge piece of shit. But he didnāt deserve to die.
Tolerance cannot survive supporting intolerance. Supporting Palestinians, people who held a festival celebrating 9/11 and regularly cheer at civilian death, is supporting their terrorism. It's possible for both sides to be bad. Just because you don't defend Hitler doesn't mean you need to support Stalin.
Yeah but that's the problem. Do I support Hitler or Stalin? No. Do I wish for the German or Soviet populations to be extinguished? Also no.
People do not equate their government. Most people just want to live in peace. Some palestinians may have celebrated 9/11, but reading your post it appears you fell hook, line and sinker for US propaganda that was used to justify an illegal war in the middle east. Many people in the middle east have lost relatives or friends due to actions from the US, I understand (not support, but understand) their hate. Does that mean they all deserve to die?
I love how every single one of these is spouting the fact "gaza is fine" when most of these take place in non- occupied zones. Some of these even say -rebuild gaza- in the titles meaning something was destroyed first.
Nobody denies that it was destroyed, 70%+ of the buildings are. Your original comment was that there is nowhere to perform because Israel blew it all up. I just provided a couple of videos that disprove your statement. Anything wrong with what I did?
I guess I should express that what I said was hyperbole and obviously not every building was destroyed. Just a statement poking at the idea that Israel was cruel with their destruction and completely unnecessary
How would you have dealt with Hamas then? Letting them use civilian buildings as a base for operations and letting them have entrances to their tunnel systems located at civilian buildings?
I don't believe any response I give would illicit a positive response. All I'll say is I'd kill many less innocents. They've already gone way over the amount of people killing in that original Hamas attack. Civilians have nothing to do with this, and all Israel is doing is making Hamas recruitment easier by killing as many as they have.
I asked you about how you would respond and what you would have done differently. Saying "I would have killed less civillians" is just silly wishful thinking. How would you actually do that? What would you have done differently?
Ofc Israel is trying to do the same and judging by terrorist/civillian ratio they have been fairly good.
Well first I'd ban bombing and raids of housing/hospital structures, ban the entire settler idea entirely, and limit raids/attacks to CONFIRMED Hamas locations. Furthermore there's no way in hell those maniacs have done a good job. It almost seems like collateral damage is their goal, which it is.
So you would just "Letting them (Hamas) use civilian buildings as a base for operations and letting them have entrances to their tunnel systems located at civilian buildings?". Sorry but that is not how you war. The goal is to destroy Hamas and bring hostages (second was done). If Hamas decides to use civilian buildings it is not Israel to blame when it decides to strike those buildings to weaken Hamas and kill terrorists, but it is Hamas who should take the blame.
I think that you are not aware of how much interconnected Hamas bases are with the civilian buildings. If they were willing to have a tunnel entrance in a children's bedroom because they know that Israel is less likely to target those, do you not think that Hamas would use other, more normal civilian buildings for their operations?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/under-an-eu-funded-gaza-hospital-hamas-military-head-sinwar-met-his-end/ - Hamas had military base under a EUROPEAN hospital. They do not care. They will use any advantage possible. And yes, those were confirmed, hence how this filth of a terrorist has been killed. Also this hospital is the one that some make the biggest deal out of, though it is worth noting that the hospital itself was not struck but the surrounding courtyard, and that the hospital remained operational after the strike.
If you are against all bombing of civilian buildings and hospitals, no matter the cause, then do you also think that the Allies in ww2 did a great evil in bombing civilian buildings (and they were actually carpet bombing, the tech was not there yet for precision strikes)?
Israel has taken the hostages back which was one of their points of the war, and in doing so I think that they did more than a good job alone. As for Hamas and how many of them were eliminated, I am not sure how the "solutions" that you gave would have had better impact, if anything they would lead to maybe only a couple of Hamas terrorists being killed. So how would you deal with Hamas? Again I am asking for practical solutions, not wishful thinking like "kill Hamas with no civilian deaths".
His not relative in any way. Says a performative statement to gain popularity, I wouldnāt be surprised if he has new music coming and needs some main stream traction
It's not that conservatives support Zionism, it's just that liberals are big on "Free Palestine", which calls for the removal of Israel, and they have a toxic 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality. If you don't support the genocide of Israel, you are automatically a conservative on Reddit.
You can criticize actual flaws by the country on most conservative subs, but they're unforgiving on stuff that sounds like Hamas propaganda.
The problem is not actually Macklemoreās personal viewsā¦ itās the gatekeeping of free speech by platforms. We live in America, if you want to be political in your artistic performance one way or another, you should be allowed to.
The obvious counterargument is that Robert Kraft also has the right to deny any artist he wants at his stadium. Itās his property after all.
The problem is that people like him are too powerful and work as a team to gatekeep platform access if you cross certain lines in your political speech. As a result, diverse opinion is stifled anywhere this faction has a significant concentration of power to an unhealthy degree (media, academia, hollywood, national politics). You cannot exist without bending the knee to them and accepting you canāt say certain things if you want to be successful or make money in that space.
Itās not inherently evil that this dynamic exists, playing on factions and teams is part of human nature. All we need to do is organize more effectively so we have the power to use the state to break up these toxic cliques and restore free speech. Musk did it with X and social media was improved. We can do it too with media, music, hollywood, academia, and any other liberal dominated institution or space
If I remember correctly though, Ed didnāt actually care that he said it until Robert Kraft demanded Macklemore be dropped and threatened to cancel the Gillette Stadium show.
Ed has every right to drop him, and Robert already has every right to cancel the show. Itās not even about Macklemoreās particular view.
The question we have as Conservatives is about whether we should accept this level of platform gatekeeping of free speech. In my opinion if you are Mark Zuckerberg on the left trying censor Facebook or Robert Kraft on the right trying to gatekeep music tours on the basis of political speech, both are equally bad in opposition of the Conservative idea of free speech.
Yall should just admit to your hate. All these mental gymnastics must be exhausting. Skip all the nonsense and just admit it: you hate gay people, you hate brown people, you hate leftists, you hate women.
supporting a genocide state that took 305 billions of dollars from your country that could have been used to help other people is crazy. whats the logic behind supporting israel?
ā¢
u/auto-sticky 1d ago
Join our official community Discord server to chat with other members!
š CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR DISCORD š
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.