Posted on 09/27/2025 2:56:19 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Charlie Kirk is emblematic of one of the things that is great about our country. Endowed by our Creator, we have freedom of speech. The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights enshrines this. Within bounds, we can express our own opinion, argue, and debate. Most importantly, we are free to say unpopular things so long as there’s no incitement to violence or willful defamation.
Charlie used freedom of speech to enlighten, educate, argue, and persuade. He chose a debate format, offering people with ideological differences a chance to give their own perspectives. If you count winning by hearts and minds, there was a clear champion over time of the debates. And, that champion was gathering strength and gaining ground. This is what terrified atheists and progressives most. The latter’s worldview has a stranglehold based on conformity, consensus, and ideological purity couching no challenge or dissent.
Calls have been renewed for progressive fascists to renounce political violence and violent rhetoric. This would leave progressives embracing just the socialist component of fascism. Establishing such a limit on themselves, they would have to settle for progressive socialism. This presents a vulnerability to ever louder calls to debate differences instead of resolving them with coercion, intimidation, and violence.
Why can’t progressive fascists debate? The answer is that, decades ago, progressives lost all the arguments on their merits.
How can Democrats defend socialism when it has impoverished and tyrannized citizens everywhere and every time it’s been tried? Won’t capitalism have to be recognized as the only economic system in mankind’s history capable of elevating people out of poverty and increasing liberty?
How will progressives justify regulation of every personal and corporate action? How will they oppose implementing only necessary, affordable, and beneficial regulations?
When libertarians opine the money you have earned legitimately is yours,...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Bkmk
“ we are free to say unpopular things so long as there’s no incitement to violence or willful defamation”
There’s been a lot of “incitement to violence” lately, including by media elites and elected Democrat politicians.
Will they ever be held accountable?
Democrats have only tri-fer: lying, cheating, and stealing.
And those silly little beings actually think that they have an ‘eddikashun’...from great ‘kolleges’.
The side that resorts to shouting and violence instead of debate is bankrupt of ideas.
It may be that they are not allowed to.
Prior to Donald Trump, both of America’s primary political parties appeared to be firmly in the grip of Red China. Trump has, apparently, forced his control over the Republican Party, for now.
Minus the President’s efforts, I have little doubt that China is attempting to make their system, ours. No debate. Vote only as you are told. 24/7 propaganda with iron control by the government over discussion.
In Red China, Charlie Kirk would have still been shot, but it would have been by the government in a darkened cell.
Simply stated, liberals argue from feelings which are not debatable. Facts are irrelevant when it contradicts how they “feel.” It pains me to hear conservatives not understand this.
Excellent article.
As El Rush-Bo often pointed out, the democRATS and DemoKKKrats cannot compete in the arena of ideas. They have to shut down debate, and stop the truth tellers by any means necessary.
Even in the most recent videos from congressional hearings, the Left CONSTANTLY talks over anyone who does not repeat their lies.
For years, the old congressional skulls full of mush have used the idiotic “reclaiming my time” “reclaiming my time” mantra when someone states something they do not like.
It’s about time for any Trump Administration person to have some fun and, while testifying or answering questions in front of congress, to repeat their own mantra: “Reclaiming The Truth” “Reclaiming The Truth”
That seems characteristic, but there are exceptions. Dems are saddled with demon-possessed nut cases whom all of society ought to dis avow and disallow from ballot access and voting privileges.
bfl
Rob Reiner appeared on Bill Maher’s show and said that liberals must avoid talking to conservatives unless they have certain facts agreed to. Maher disagreed without asking Reiner what those necessary facts consisted of. I would like to have heard them. My guess is that they would be like the question “have you stopped beating your wife?” Once you accept the premise contained in the question the argument is over. Kirk, and astute debaters, never accept the false premise. When presented, one must always demand that the premise be factually supported. The argument that everyone knows that or “experts all agree” is faulty logic. Facts don’t become science because there’s a consensus. Liberals can’t support their assertions without falling back on nebulous nonsense or false legitimacy.
How will anybody ever be able to ‘debate’ political opponents like the ‘students’ at Tennessee State U? The literacy of average Americans is dismal. They haven’t the intellectual machinery to even comprehend or engage in ‘debate.’ All they know is rapid reflex emotional reaction. It bothers the heck out of me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.