AOC being a complete **** but trying to act high and mighty. Shes also considering a run for president.

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/charlie-kirk-shooting-investigation-9-19-2025

Pretty scummy title you have there. They voted against honoring his life and legacy, not condemning his killing.

Eagerly awaiting your Atomic reply

so no substance. gets caved and runs. telling people that have to live with the full force of leftist dogma infecting every area of life from entertainment, education, business, religion, sports, and now political attacks and killings that we live in an echo chamber. that is truly rich.

It would have at least been good to post the text of the resolution and indicate the objectionable portions.

You can tell the new poster has been in a relative bubble of progressive leaning social media, and is not used to being debated in a forum rather than agreed with. This place is considerably more tolerant of dissection from the dominant opinion than most progressive forums, in my experience.

She calls him uneducated. We all missed out on the opportunity for her to debate him.

Ok, you said something minimally logical, so you earn a reply. I didn't include the objectionable parts because you can just google "controversial statements by Charlie Kirk" if you are somehow unaware of what people find objectionable about him. And then once armed with that information, it's obvious why some people would have a problem going on record honoring his legacy.

And no, you do not have an accurate assumption of my background. I was a lifelong Republican from a rural Republican community until about 2018. I listened to Rush and Glenn Beck on my drives to and from CS. I guess you could say I grew up in the right wing bubble, but Trump pushed me enough out of my comfort zone to start questioning my beliefs and considering all viewpoints.

I'm still in that same conservative community, so I know a thing or two about extreme conservative opinions. I have a father in law who thinks trans people should be banned from public toilets, a cousin who thinks Trump should get a third term, and a coworker who thinks all LGBT people should be executed. But overall, the conservatives I know are pretty reasonable people.

And I'm still fairly shocked by what I see here, and I don't think it represents mainstream, traditional Aggie values.

exactly which quotes in context are you objecting to?

AtomicActuator said:

---

Ok, you said something minimally logical, so you earn a reply. I didn't include the objectionable parts because you can just google "controversial statements by Charlie Kirk" if you are somehow unaware of what people find objectionable about him. And then once armed with that information, it's obvious why some people would have a problem going on record honoring his legacy.

And no, you do not have an accurate assumption of my background. I was a lifelong Republican from a rural Republican community until about 2018. I listened to Rush and Glenn Beck on my drives to and from CS. I guess you could say I grew up in the right wing bubble, but Trump pushed me enough out of my comfort zone to start questioning my beliefs and considering all viewpoints.

I'm still in that same conservative community, so I know a thing or two about extreme conservative opinions. I have a father in law who thinks trans people should be banned from public toilets, a cousin who thinks Trump should get a third term, and a coworker who thinks all LGBT people should be executed. But overall, the conservatives I know are pretty reasonable people.

And I'm still fairly shocked by what I see here, and I don't think it represents mainstream, traditional Aggie values.

---

You might want to climb down from your self built moral high ground since the lack of oxygen is apparently negatively impacting your brain function.

Google "Charlie Kirk says Civil Rights Act was a mistake" and yes he did say it. Now watch the entire discussion about intent and execution and it as a piece of legislation. Was it needed? Yes. Was the intent noble? Yes. Was it good for black Americans? Yes. Did he oppose the idea or intent? No. He applauded it. He said how it was written and the broad negative implications it is currently creating was a mistake.

Intelligence. Nuance. Things that don't exist within the political left. Lies, shock, emotional responses, that is more their speed.

Now take this same level of critical thought and apply it to EACH "controversial" statement that is being peddled and use the brain you are apparently very proud of.

I look forward to your hot takes on Kimmel being fired is awful but everything done to de-platform conservative voices, and how Artic Frost was all good for party comrade.

Note I never said I disagreed with anything he said, because that's irrelevant to my point. Im making an argument about the logic of the title, not an opinion on what he said.

The point is that it's an objective fact that many people deeply disagree with things he said, and therefore would not be able to in good conscience honor his legacy.

They would almost certainly have voted to condemn his killing though if it were presented as a clean resolution doing only that, but we just don't know now.

All we know for sure is they voted against a resolution to condemn the killing AND to honor him.

Democrats cheer: Yay! Let's go murder party!

Goodness. This nation is coming unglued.

We should all be able to condemn all political violence. But some believe their foes should not be allowed to even live.

Cromagnum said:

---

AOC being a complete **** but trying to act high and mighty. Shes also considering a run for president.

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/charlie-kirk-shooting-investigation-9-19-2025

---

That no vote alone should all but end any chances she thought that she had. Luckily the majority of non radical left wing Democrats would find that pretty appalling. If she somehow makes it out of the primary, she's toast on that alone. Vance (most likely) team would run that ad all the way up to election night.

AtomicActuator said:

---

And no, you do not have an accurate assumption of my background. I was a lifelong Republican from a rural Republican community until about 2018. I listened to Rush and Glenn Beck on my drives to and from CS. I guess you could say I grew up in the right wing bubble, but Trump pushed me enough out of my comfort zone to start questioning my beliefs and considering all viewpoints.

---

AtomicActuator said:

---

Pretty scummy title you have there. They voted against honoring his life and legacy, not condemning his killing.

---

This is embarrassing. You may want to make a closer read of the bill.

Is this not in the bill?

"(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty;"

AtomicActuator said:

---

Is this not in the bill?

"(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty;"

---

There was plenty more. Don't ignore the other parts.

Let's see some more.

Quote:

---

Whereas the assassination of Charlie Kirk was not only a heinous act of violence, but a sobering reminder of the growing threat posed by political extremism and hatred in our society;

Whereas such acts of politically motivated violence are antithetical to the principles of a free republic, in which differences of opinion are to be debatednot silencedwith civility, reason, and mutual respect;

Whereas the rise in targeted violence against individuals for their political beliefs undermines the very fabric of our constitutional democracy and chills the free exchange of ideas essential to a healthy civic society;

Whereas leaders at every level government, education, media, and beyond must stand united in unequivocal condemnation of political violence, regardless of their ideology;

---

It is not a bill.

It is a resolution.

I will not allow troll disinformation.

The house resolution 719 reads as such, in full:
RESOLUTION

Honoring the life and legacy of Charles "Charlie" James Kirk.

Whereas Charles "Charlie" James Kirk, born October 14, 1993, was a courageous American patriot, whose life was tragically and unjustly cut short in an act of political violence on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University;

Whereas Charlie Kirk was a devoted Christian, who boldly lived out his faith with conviction, courage, and compassion;

Whereas Charlie Kirk was a dedicated husband to his beloved wife, Erika Kirk, and a loving father to their daughter and son, exemplifying the virtues of faith, fidelity, and fatherhood;

Whereas Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility;

Whereas Charlie Kirk, at 18 years old, founded Turning Point USA in 2012, a student movement with the mission to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government";

Whereas Charlie Kirk became one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;

Whereas Charlie Kirk personified the values of the First Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;

Whereas Charlie Kirk's commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction;

Whereas the assassination of Charlie Kirk was not only a heinous act of violence, but a sobering reminder of the growing threat posed by political extremism and hatred in our society;

Whereas such acts of politically motivated violence are antithetical to the principles of a free republic, in which differences of opinion are to be debatednot silencedwith civility, reason, and mutual respect;

Whereas the rise in targeted violence against individuals for their political beliefs undermines the very fabric of our constitutional democracy and chills the free exchange of ideas essential to a healthy civic society;

Whereas leaders at every levelgovernment, education, media, and beyondmust stand united in unequivocal condemnation of political violence, regardless of their ideology;

Whereas the tragic loss of Charlie Kirk must not be allowed to deepen the divides in our Nation, but instead serve as a turning point to recommit ourselves to better angels, and to the timeless American principles of liberty governed by truth and the virtues of peaceful dialogue; and

Whereas Charlie Kirk would not have us respond to his death with despair, but rather with renewed purposeto speak truth with courage, to stand firm in faith, to seek unity while standing firm in principle, and to serve as living reminders of the values he championed: faith, family, and freedom: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles "Charlie" James Kirk, and all forms of political violence;

(2) commends and honors the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect;

(3) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk's family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace, and healing in this time of unspeakable loss;

(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; and

(5) calls upon all Americansregardless of race, party affiliation, or creedto reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/719

Rapier108 said:

---

AtomicActuator said:

---

And no, you do not have an accurate assumption of my background. I was a lifelong Republican from a rural Republican community until about 2018. I listened to Rush and Glenn Beck on my drives to and from CS. I guess you could say I grew up in the right wing bubble, but Trump pushed me enough out of my comfort zone to start questioning my beliefs and considering all viewpoints.

---

---

This guy apparently grew up listening to Rush & Beck, traditional conservatives, but is considering switching parties. I'm wondering what positions that the Democrats hold & stand on in current day that he is in support of? I mean I would sort of get this remark if he stated it back in the early 2000s, but now? Yeah, ok we're not buying it

I'm not a fan of Democrats at all, other than their position that we should respect the rights of everyone. I'm generally a moderate libertarian, which means I'm pretty much politically homeless. I'm against Republicans now and until they move away from authoritarianism.

So which Democrat candidate could they trot out there on the ballot that would make you not vote independent?

And what authoritarianism tactics do you feel like the Republicans are doing? I'm guessing by your Ag tag, you were old enough to be an adult during the 2020-2021 Covid lockdowns

Except the whole Covid thing where they wanted to force a shot or gun rights and stripping them or taking more money for income redistribution from people who already pay WAY more than their fair share.

At this point I vote against authoritarianism, which means I vote for the candidate most likely to win who isn't authoritarian, which today is synonymous with maga.

It's blatantly obvious that the things stated by one new poster are not truthful, factual or legitimate.

There is another poster trolling too.

AtomicActuator said:

---

I'm not a fan of Democrats at all, other than their position that we should respect the rights of everyone. I'm generally a moderate libertarian, which means I'm pretty much politically homeless. I'm against Republicans now and until they move away from authoritarianism.

---

the left is celebrating the assassination of somebody they hated because of what he said and you think they respect the rights of everyone. I guess everyone they don't kill

smells like keef

What authoritarianism tactics do you feel like the Republicans are practicing currently? I'm guessing by your Ag tag, you were old enough to be an adult during the 2020-2021 Covid lockdowns

AtomicActuator said:

---

At this point I vote against authoritarianism, which means I vote for the candidate most likely to win who isn't authoritarian, which today is synonymous with maga.

---

Just stop already. Everyone can see right through you.

You sound just like what Rush used to call "seminar callers."

"I'm a Republicans but... (insert Democrat talking points)."

AgBQ-00 said:

---

smells like keef

---

keefs condescension dripped through each sentence. Probably not keef. LOL

I mean we are talking about a bunch of anti-Christs who refused to stand for a young dying child battling terminal brain cancer.

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY DESPISE ALL MODERN LIBERALS ENOUGH. There is not a single good one.

AtomicActuator said:

---

At this point I vote against authoritarianism, which means I vote for the candidate most likely to win who isn't authoritarian, which today is synonymous with maga.

---

So you voted against Biden and Kamala for their tyrannical vaccine mandates and demonization of the other half of the country as "domestic extremists"?

AtomicActuator said:

---

At this point I vote against authoritarianism, which means I vote for the candidate most likely to win who isn't authoritarian, which today is synonymous with maga.

---

So I'll ask a third time, since you keep dodging my question........ you were obviously alive during Covid. If Gavin Newscum makes it through the primaries, you'll be voting for him? The guy that kept his state on lockdown for an insane amount of time and ruined a bunch of small businesses. You think that he is less of an authoritarian than Vance or Desantis?

bobbranco said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

smells like keef

---

keefs condescension dripped through each sentence. Probably not keef. LOL

---

But sits and the corner and watches , nevertheless.