Lying would imply I deliberately made it up.
If I could recall what Kirk said that was a distortion, I would.
So to be clear, you can't recall a single thing that Charlie Kirk has ever said that was a "distortion". Yet you still called him "dishonest". In other words, you made it up. No implying at all there. You made up something you now admit not knowing the truth of for the express purpose of slandering a man who was just murdered. That actually is a step below lying.
I recall him doing it frequently in 2024.
Good grief, man. You just admitted that you couldn't recall. So no, you don't recall him doing it frequently in 2024. Another lie. Do you know what that makes you?
Unfortunately I can't remember exactly what it was.
'Exactly' what it was? Heck, you can't remember a damn thing about anything he's ever said. You admit so. Yet now you try to nudge the goal posts with your 'exactly' qualifier? Yet another act of dishonesty from you.
That site is full of that sort of ragebait and Kirk was far from the only one doing it.
Got any proof of that? Oh, that's right. You don't. Yet here you are again repeating the claim. Yet another dishonest statement from you.
I simply don't remember exactly what. I don't recall.
If you don't remember, then why make the claim in the first place, especially to slander someone who was just murdered?
I only recall what my reaction to it was.
You mean your emotional reaction. Your feelings.
I wish I could remember, and I wish I could look it up, but I can't do either of those things right now.
Then how do you know your emotions or feelings were stirred by a dishonest statement rather than you simply not liking the TRUTH that Kirk laid on you? I watch his videos all the time. And all the liberals that react negatively to what he says do so not because Kirk is being dishonest. They do so because they can't refute what he is saying. Liberals have a tendency of searing an emotional response to a person or event while completely ignoring truth, reason, or critical thought. Kind of like what you're doing now.
So we can conclude that Kirk evoked a negative emotional reaction from you. At the time, you chose not to evaluate the veracity his arguments, but chose to take up an offense because your emotions couldn't deal with any truthful contradictions to your world view. And less than two years later, here you are, still unable to consider any argument that conflicts with your emotional state to the point that you would actually slander a man who was just murdered by calling him "dishonest".
Well, one thing is certain. By your own testimony, it has been proven that you are the dishonest one here, not that you give a shit about 'truth'. Emotion is the only thing that drives you.
I hope nobody calls you a liar when you forget something.
That's what humility is for. Admit one's errors. Repent. And move on. Yet here you are tripling down on 'Kirk must have lied because I remember my reaction from two years ago (but not what he said that caused that reaction).
Your move.
