Kimmel Pulled Off Air Indefinitely

16,485 Views | 603 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by Zombie Jon Snow
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTmAg • 2:01p, 9/18/25
aTmAg said:
Macarthur said:
The Glaring diff here, Cliff is that the FCC/Adminsitration did not put pressure on those firings. That is textbook freedom of speech violation.

Your employer firing you for acting one way or another is not that.

The Biden administration literally instructed social media companies to delete and suppress posts they didn't like. That even wasn't under he guise of guise FCC regulatory role. It was just them directly using the government to suppress speech.


You are mischaracterizing this, big time.

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-court-social-media-case


Writing for a liberal-conservative coalition of six justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all. She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech. "Unfortunately," she said, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals "relied on factual findings that are "clearly erroneous."
Reply Quote
5
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:05p, 9/18/25
For instance, she said, the plaintiffs who brought the case maintained that the White House had bombarded Twitter with requests to set up a streamlined process for censorship requests. But in fact, she said, the record showed no such requests. Rather, on one occasion a White House official asked Twitter to remove a fake account pretending to be the account of Biden's granddaughter. Twitter took down the fake account and told the official about a portal that could be used in the future to flag similar issues.

"Justice Barrett went out of her way to stress that facts matter and that lower courts in this case embraced a fact-free version of what transpired between officials in the Biden administration and Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies," said law professor Paul Barrett, no relation to the justice, who is deputy director of the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU.
Reply Quote
3
amercer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cliff.Booth • 2:05p, 9/18/25
AG
Cliff.Booth said:
I've read of some people on the left in the wake of last week and the general applause/indifference finally have their "are we the baddies?" moment. It isn't a game, CK's views were fairly mainstream for the most part, he invited debate and discussion, he didn't call for violence, and when he was offed it was celebrated. That's beyond the pale. Moral compass shut down by ideology. Kimmel's attempt to lie and pin it on MAGA instead of shutting TFU or maybe using his platform to dial back the tension says everything about him.


I think more people are deep within their own bubbles than they can really see. Before this happened, I basically had no idea who Kirk was. As to how mainstream his ideas were, I find it somewhat telling that the people praising him never use his own words in their eulogies.

Also, while everyone jumps to conclusions informed by their own biases (just part of how the brain works) we actually don't know **** about the shooter or his motives.

So Kimmel could be completely wrong (I think he is, but I cant KNOW that right now) You can't really lie when you don't know. All the FCC threats would never hold up to scrutiny. And I sincerely doubt that people praising Kimmels firing would be out in full force demanding his reinstatement if it comes out during the trial that the shooter was full MAGA and pulled the trigger for some other unknown bat**** crazy reason.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Fenrir
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 2:09p, 9/18/25
Macarthur said:
aTmAg said:
Macarthur said:
The Glaring diff here, Cliff is that the FCC/Adminsitration did not put pressure on those firings. That is textbook freedom of speech violation.

Your employer firing you for acting one way or another is not that.

The Biden administration literally instructed social media companies to delete and suppress posts they didn't like. That even wasn't under he guise of guise FCC regulatory role. It was just them directly using the government to suppress speech.


You are mischaracterizing this, big time.

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-court-social-media-case


Writing for a liberal-conservative coalition of six justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all. She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech. "Unfortunately," she said, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals "relied on factual findings that are "clearly erroneous."

We have communications within social media entities and direct confirmation from people like Zuckerberg stating that they chose to censor information on the basis that they received direction from the White House.

Also the bolded is a mischaracterization of what she said. Her statement was that they could not prove that the social media entities would not have acted against them in the absence of government influence. Basically saying that it was purely speculative that the suggestions from the white house (which we know from multiple sources was real) were the reason for the censorship. Hilariously you could apply this same reasoning to Kimmel's firing as not being coerced by the current white house.
Reply Quote
9
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fenrir • 2:11p, 9/18/25
AG
Fenrir said:
Macarthur said:
aTmAg said:
Macarthur said:
The Glaring diff here, Cliff is that the FCC/Adminsitration did not put pressure on those firings. That is textbook freedom of speech violation.

Your employer firing you for acting one way or another is not that.

The Biden administration literally instructed social media companies to delete and suppress posts they didn't like. That even wasn't under he guise of guise FCC regulatory role. It was just them directly using the government to suppress speech.


You are mischaracterizing this, big time.

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-court-social-media-case


Writing for a liberal-conservative coalition of six justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all. She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech. "Unfortunately," she said, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals "relied on factual findings that are "clearly erroneous."

We have communications within social media entities and direct confirmation from people like Zuckerberg stating that they chose to censor information on the basis that they received direction from the White House.

Also the bolded is a mischaracterization of what she said. Her statement was that they could not prove that the social media entities would not have acted against them in the absence of government influence. Basically saying that it was purely speculative that the suggestions from the white house (which we know from multiple sources was real) were the reason for the censorship. Hilariously you could apply this same reasoning to Kimmel's firing as not being coerced by the current white house.


https://www.axios.com/2025/01/10/mark-zuckerberg-joe-rogan-facebook-censorship-biden
Reply Quote
1 edit
Fenrir
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to amercer • 2:11p, 9/18/25
amercer said:
Cliff.Booth said:
I've read of some people on the left in the wake of last week and the general applause/indifference finally have their "are we the baddies?" moment. It isn't a game, CK's views were fairly mainstream for the most part, he invited debate and discussion, he didn't call for violence, and when he was offed it was celebrated. That's beyond the pale. Moral compass shut down by ideology. Kimmel's attempt to lie and pin it on MAGA instead of shutting TFU or maybe using his platform to dial back the tension says everything about him.


I think more people are deep within their own bubbles than they can really see. Before this happened, I basically had no idea who Kirk was. As to how mainstream his ideas were, I find it somewhat telling that the people praising him never use his own words in their eulogies.

Also, while everyone jumps to conclusions informed by their own biases (just part of how the brain works) we actually don't know **** about the shooter or his motives.

So Kimmel could be completely wrong (I think he is, but I cant KNOW that right now) You can't really lie when you don't know. All the FCC threats would never hold up to scrutiny. And I sincerely doubt that people praising Kimmels firing would be out in full force demanding his reinstatement if it comes out during the trial that the shooter was full MAGA and pulled the trigger for some other unknown bat**** crazy reason.

Is this confirmation of how deep you are within your own bubble or an accusation against others? Seems like it could go both ways.
Reply Quote
3
Ag87H2O
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 2:14p, 9/18/25
AG
Sapper Redux said:
Ag87H2O said:




These posts show some of the left's hypocrisy, clearly explains the FCC position, and then lays out the actual law. The networks were well within their rights and even obligation to cancel Kimmel. He thought he was bulletproof and found out otherwise.


Sorry, but what specifically that Kimmel said was lying about a crime? When he spoke we had no idea about the background of the suspect who was already in custody. Kimmel was speaking about the attacks by the right on "the left" as a group following the murder without any knowledge about the motivations of the killer. That's not a lie. That's not causing harm to a criminal investigation. This is such pathetic deliberate misuse of a statute to go after someone Trump doesn't like. I could point to Sinclair stations which were required to run Boris Epshteyn bits on broadcast network television. You don't think there was a single thing he said that wasn't a lie? Did the FCC threaten to revoke the license of any Sinclair station for running it?

Doesn't matter whether or not he knew about the background of the suspect. Just goes to show how dumb he was to say what he said. Kimmel stated unequivocably that the "MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". He stated that as a fact, even though it wasn't true.

Any reasonable person doesn't make that kind of slanderous statement without being 100% certain. He was being intentionally inflammatory, which certainly harmful to the pubic interest, especially at a time when tensions are already off the charts high.

In the end, it wasn't any threat of FCC action that got him fired. It was ABC responding to the public outcry because of his comments. When the market spoke and Nextstar/Sinclair dropped him, the writing was on the wall. Kimmel did this to himself, and it's good to see companies finally responding to actual public demands instead of being bullied into compliance by the leftist media mafia.


Reply Quote
amercer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fenrir • 2:15p, 9/18/25
AG
Yes. We all are.

My bubble is kind of weird as I don't have social media or watch TV news. So mine is NYT/Economist

But I think the point is that 70% of the country basically had little idea who Kirk was while 30% saw daily content from him and thought of him as being one of the most famous people in the country
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
captkirk
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 2:20p, 9/18/25
AG
TCTTS said:
You can ***** and moan all you want about someone you hate doing something hateful.

But you cannot argue that our government should be able to effectively silence him via public threat, yet you conveniently keep side-stepping that central issue.

You're just mad that someone you don't like said something you don't like.

That's called being emotional.

It takes a different kind of maturity to be able to admit he should still be able to say what he said without fear of threat/reprisal from our government. Because what happens now that the precedent is set, but the tables are eventually turned, and the next Democrat-led/installed FCC chair goes after Greg Gutfeld or whoever in the same way?

Reply Quote
1
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag87H2O • 2:20p, 9/18/25
There was very clear pressure from the FCC. Just own that you support a new nanny state that regulates whose feelings are hurt.
Reply Quote
9
fig96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag87H2O • 2:22p, 9/18/25
AG
Ag87H2O said:
Sapper Redux said:
Ag87H2O said:




These posts show some of the left's hypocrisy, clearly explains the FCC position, and then lays out the actual law. The networks were well within their rights and even obligation to cancel Kimmel. He thought he was bulletproof and found out otherwise.


Sorry, but what specifically that Kimmel said was lying about a crime? When he spoke we had no idea about the background of the suspect who was already in custody. Kimmel was speaking about the attacks by the right on "the left" as a group following the murder without any knowledge about the motivations of the killer. That's not a lie. That's not causing harm to a criminal investigation. This is such pathetic deliberate misuse of a statute to go after someone Trump doesn't like. I could point to Sinclair stations which were required to run Boris Epshteyn bits on broadcast network television. You don't think there was a single thing he said that wasn't a lie? Did the FCC threaten to revoke the license of any Sinclair station for running it?

Doesn't matter whether or not he knew about the background of the suspect. Just goes to show how dumb he was to say what he said. Kimmel stated unequivocably that the "MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". He stated that as a fact, even though it wasn't true.

Any reasonable person doesn't make that kind of slanderous statement without being 100% certain. He was being intentionally inflammatory, which certainly harmful to the pubic interest, especially at a time when tensions are already off the charts high.

In the end, it wasn't any threat of FCC action that got him fired. It was ABC responding to the public outcry because of his comments. When the market spoke and Nextstar/Sinclair dropped him, the writing was on the wall. Kimmel did this to himself, and it's good to see companies finally responding to actual public demands instead of being bullied into compliance by the leftist media mafia.
Again, trying to characterize that as a definitive statement of fact feels like a reach. It's far from "unequivocal".
Reply Quote
7
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTmAg • 2:25p, 9/18/25
aTmAg said:
Sapper Redux said:
aTmAg said:
DannyDuberstein said:
swimmerbabe11 said:
suburban cowboy said:
Madmarttigan said:
I don't give a rats ass about Jimmy Kimmel.

That being said a bunch of snowflakes in here celebrating **** the liberals used to do.

This was such a nothing burger bit said by him.

I'm tired of snowflakes on both sides.



One side is killing their opposition. One isn't.



what happened to Melissa Hortman?


You mean the lady killed by the guy appointed by a democrat governor, reappointed by Tim Waltz, had No Kings flyers in his car, and wrote in his confession that Tim Waltz instructed him to do it? I don't think this is rhe MAGA man you think he is.

Of course, nobody REALLY thinks Tim Waltz instructed him to do it. But that and the rest shows this is more a case of a guy being nuttier than squirl poop, than a case of "conservative violence"?


He had a hit list of 45 Democrats. Yes, he was a conservative and he might have been insane (or trying to make a case for court). The two are not separate

Let's assume that he was perfectly sane... There has been nothing said by republican pundits or politicians that called Melissa Hortman "Stalin" or "Lenin" who was trying to "destroy democracy". There was nothing being "passed down" that could ever be considered "suggestions" for anybody to kill her. That's why there wasn't a huge pile of conservatives on social media celebrating her death and calling him a "hero". Most people had never even heard of her. It's just that this guy was a bankrupt jackass, who had given up on life, and wanted to go out in a twisted blaze of glory.

Meanwhile on your side, you have a normal kid who was radicalized in a short time to think that Trump is Hitler, that conservatives are Nazis, and that Charlie Kirk was basically Goebbles. Which is something that lib pundits have been saying non-stop for a decade. All that is needed is for somebody to "step up" and be the left's modern Stauffenberg. So that's why we DO have a crap-ton of leftists celebrating Kirk's death. Who wouldn't celebrate the death of Goebbles? So those dumbasses who actually thinks that Kirk=Goebbles celebrate. That is why the left punditry and political class deserve much more of the blame.

Wait, so you've missed the last 17 years of calling every liberal or center left person a Marxist who hates America and wants to destroy/imprison/kill all of their opponents? It doesn't have to be Hortman specifically called out to be a massive target. She was a visible leader of the state's Democrats. The inability to ever admit any wrongdoing on the right is just amazing from folks like you. It's childish.
Reply Quote
13
aTmAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 2:27p, 9/18/25
AG
Macarthur said:
aTmAg said:
Macarthur said:
The Glaring diff here, Cliff is that the FCC/Adminsitration did not put pressure on those firings. That is textbook freedom of speech violation.

Your employer firing you for acting one way or another is not that.

The Biden administration literally instructed social media companies to delete and suppress posts they didn't like. That even wasn't under he guise of guise FCC regulatory role. It was just them directly using the government to suppress speech.


You are mischaracterizing this, big time.

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-court-social-media-case


Writing for a liberal-conservative coalition of six justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all. She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech. "Unfortunately," she said, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals "relied on factual findings that are "clearly erroneous."

The emails are well documented from twitter-gate or whatever it was called. Regardless if states had standing or not.
Reply Quote
2
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 2:28p, 9/18/25
AG
Sapper Redux said:
There was very clear pressure from the FCC. Just own that you support a new nanny state that regulates whose feelings are hurt.

Says the side that wouldn't own the nanny state of the Biden Administration pressuring social media networks to censor content that hurt their feelings - including his opponent for the last election. That's very interesting.
Reply Quote
7
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fig96 • 2:33p, 9/18/25
AG
fig96 said:
Ag87H2O said:
Sapper Redux said:
Ag87H2O said:




These posts show some of the left's hypocrisy, clearly explains the FCC position, and then lays out the actual law. The networks were well within their rights and even obligation to cancel Kimmel. He thought he was bulletproof and found out otherwise.


Sorry, but what specifically that Kimmel said was lying about a crime? When he spoke we had no idea about the background of the suspect who was already in custody. Kimmel was speaking about the attacks by the right on "the left" as a group following the murder without any knowledge about the motivations of the killer. That's not a lie. That's not causing harm to a criminal investigation. This is such pathetic deliberate misuse of a statute to go after someone Trump doesn't like. I could point to Sinclair stations which were required to run Boris Epshteyn bits on broadcast network television. You don't think there was a single thing he said that wasn't a lie? Did the FCC threaten to revoke the license of any Sinclair station for running it?

Doesn't matter whether or not he knew about the background of the suspect. Just goes to show how dumb he was to say what he said. Kimmel stated unequivocably that the "MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". He stated that as a fact, even though it wasn't true.

Any reasonable person doesn't make that kind of slanderous statement without being 100% certain. He was being intentionally inflammatory, which certainly harmful to the pubic interest, especially at a time when tensions are already off the charts high.

In the end, it wasn't any threat of FCC action that got him fired. It was ABC responding to the public outcry because of his comments. When the market spoke and Nextstar/Sinclair dropped him, the writing was on the wall. Kimmel did this to himself, and it's good to see companies finally responding to actual public demands instead of being bullied into compliance by the leftist media mafia.
Again, trying to characterize that as a definitive statement of fact feels like a reach. It's far from "unequivocal".


What you missed is that nobody laughed. It wasn't a joke, and the audience knew that (dumb as they are). So what was it?
Reply Quote
1
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 2:37p, 9/18/25
AG
AGC said:
fig96 said:
Ag87H2O said:
Sapper Redux said:
Ag87H2O said:




These posts show some of the left's hypocrisy, clearly explains the FCC position, and then lays out the actual law. The networks were well within their rights and even obligation to cancel Kimmel. He thought he was bulletproof and found out otherwise.


Sorry, but what specifically that Kimmel said was lying about a crime? When he spoke we had no idea about the background of the suspect who was already in custody. Kimmel was speaking about the attacks by the right on "the left" as a group following the murder without any knowledge about the motivations of the killer. That's not a lie. That's not causing harm to a criminal investigation. This is such pathetic deliberate misuse of a statute to go after someone Trump doesn't like. I could point to Sinclair stations which were required to run Boris Epshteyn bits on broadcast network television. You don't think there was a single thing he said that wasn't a lie? Did the FCC threaten to revoke the license of any Sinclair station for running it?

Doesn't matter whether or not he knew about the background of the suspect. Just goes to show how dumb he was to say what he said. Kimmel stated unequivocably that the "MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". He stated that as a fact, even though it wasn't true.

Any reasonable person doesn't make that kind of slanderous statement without being 100% certain. He was being intentionally inflammatory, which certainly harmful to the pubic interest, especially at a time when tensions are already off the charts high.

In the end, it wasn't any threat of FCC action that got him fired. It was ABC responding to the public outcry because of his comments. When the market spoke and Nextstar/Sinclair dropped him, the writing was on the wall. Kimmel did this to himself, and it's good to see companies finally responding to actual public demands instead of being bullied into compliance by the leftist media mafia.
Again, trying to characterize that as a definitive statement of fact feels like a reach. It's far from "unequivocal".


What you missed is that nobody laughed. It wasn't a joke, and the audience knew that (dumb as they are). So what was it?

It's called the set up for a joke. (it doesn't have to be factual)
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Lathspell
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:38p, 9/18/25
AG
Lol... so now calling Marxists who push the beliefs of Karl Marx, proudly, is the same as every historical American institution calling half the country Nazis and fascists, even though their beliefs have nothing to do with Nazis or fascism.

Also, you are missing a key part of the dialogue. Conservatives call leftists Marxists, but they don't follow up with calls for violence against Marxists. The left calls conservatives Nazis and fascists, followed by calls to "punch a Nazi". They literally call center-right beliefs "violence" and say it is okay to respond to violence with violence.

And lastly... they literally just ****ing killed a moderate right-wing Christian who wanted nothing more than to have a conversation with them.

Due to all of that and then reading your attitude towards us... I can honestly say, I. Don't. Care.

You can't point to "freedom of speech" anymore and play your silly games. We're over it. Your side does not support our freedoms of speech, therefore, I don't care about yours. The social contract we were all apart of has been torn in two by the left. If you really want it fixed, then respond better instead of immediately going to whataboutisms after a beloved figure on our side was brutally murdered in front of his family and those who loved him.
Reply Quote
11
Ag87H2O
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 2:40p, 9/18/25
AG
Sapper Redux said:
There was very clear pressure from the FCC. Just own that you support a new nanny state that regulates whose feelings are hurt.

Again, the FCC didn't force this decision. It was NexStar and Sinclair taking back control over programming from the ABC network instead of continuing to let the network dictate what they have to broadcast to the public.

That's what left is so excersized about. Local control over programming lessens the broadcast network's control of what the public views.

Just own that you support the old tyranical state that would rather there be central control over programming that enables the left to push their ideological narratives and agendas.
Reply Quote
1
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmendeler • 2:40p, 9/18/25
AG
schmendeler said:
AGC said:
fig96 said:
Ag87H2O said:
Sapper Redux said:
Ag87H2O said:




These posts show some of the left's hypocrisy, clearly explains the FCC position, and then lays out the actual law. The networks were well within their rights and even obligation to cancel Kimmel. He thought he was bulletproof and found out otherwise.


Sorry, but what specifically that Kimmel said was lying about a crime? When he spoke we had no idea about the background of the suspect who was already in custody. Kimmel was speaking about the attacks by the right on "the left" as a group following the murder without any knowledge about the motivations of the killer. That's not a lie. That's not causing harm to a criminal investigation. This is such pathetic deliberate misuse of a statute to go after someone Trump doesn't like. I could point to Sinclair stations which were required to run Boris Epshteyn bits on broadcast network television. You don't think there was a single thing he said that wasn't a lie? Did the FCC threaten to revoke the license of any Sinclair station for running it?

Doesn't matter whether or not he knew about the background of the suspect. Just goes to show how dumb he was to say what he said. Kimmel stated unequivocably that the "MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". He stated that as a fact, even though it wasn't true.

Any reasonable person doesn't make that kind of slanderous statement without being 100% certain. He was being intentionally inflammatory, which certainly harmful to the pubic interest, especially at a time when tensions are already off the charts high.

In the end, it wasn't any threat of FCC action that got him fired. It was ABC responding to the public outcry because of his comments. When the market spoke and Nextstar/Sinclair dropped him, the writing was on the wall. Kimmel did this to himself, and it's good to see companies finally responding to actual public demands instead of being bullied into compliance by the leftist media mafia.
Again, trying to characterize that as a definitive statement of fact feels like a reach. It's far from "unequivocal".


What you missed is that nobody laughed. It wasn't a joke, and the audience knew that (dumb as they are). So what was it?

It's called the set up for a joke. (it doesn't have to be factual)


Debatable. That's still not license to say whatever you want.
Reply Quote
1
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lathspell • 2:44p, 9/18/25
AG
Lathspell said:
Lol... so now calling Marxists who push the beliefs of Karl Marx, proudly, is the same as every historical American institution calling half the country Nazis and fascists, even though their beliefs have nothing to do with Nazis or fascism.

Also, you are missing a key part of the dialogue. Conservatives call leftists Marxists, but they don't follow up with calls for violence against Marxists. The left calls conservatives Nazis and fascists, followed by calls to "punch a Nazi". They literally call center-right beliefs "violence" and say it is okay to respond to violence with violence.

And lastly... they literally just ****ing killed a moderate right-wing Christian who wanted nothing more than to have a conversation with them.

Due to all of that and then reading your attitude towards us... I can honestly say, I. Don't. Care.

You can't point to "freedom of speech" anymore and play your silly games. We're over it. Your side does not support our freedoms of speech, therefore, I don't care about yours. The social contract we were all apart of has been torn in two by the left. If you really want it fixed, then respond better instead of immediately going to whataboutisms after a beloved figure on our side was brutally murdered in front of his family and those who loved him.


Quote:
CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): I know what you're thinking, we've got to get Joe Biden out of the way so we can run against Kammy. Oh my goodness, is she beatable. It's like Black Hillary on steroids. Is she Black? I guess she says she's Caribbean or whatever. ...

She would be a lot easier to beat than Joe Biden. Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.
Reply Quote
9
fig96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 2:53p, 9/18/25
AG
AGC said:
schmendeler said:
AGC said:
fig96 said:
Ag87H2O said:
Sapper Redux said:
Ag87H2O said:




These posts show some of the left's hypocrisy, clearly explains the FCC position, and then lays out the actual law. The networks were well within their rights and even obligation to cancel Kimmel. He thought he was bulletproof and found out otherwise.


Sorry, but what specifically that Kimmel said was lying about a crime? When he spoke we had no idea about the background of the suspect who was already in custody. Kimmel was speaking about the attacks by the right on "the left" as a group following the murder without any knowledge about the motivations of the killer. That's not a lie. That's not causing harm to a criminal investigation. This is such pathetic deliberate misuse of a statute to go after someone Trump doesn't like. I could point to Sinclair stations which were required to run Boris Epshteyn bits on broadcast network television. You don't think there was a single thing he said that wasn't a lie? Did the FCC threaten to revoke the license of any Sinclair station for running it?

Doesn't matter whether or not he knew about the background of the suspect. Just goes to show how dumb he was to say what he said. Kimmel stated unequivocably that the "MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". He stated that as a fact, even though it wasn't true.

Any reasonable person doesn't make that kind of slanderous statement without being 100% certain. He was being intentionally inflammatory, which certainly harmful to the pubic interest, especially at a time when tensions are already off the charts high.

In the end, it wasn't any threat of FCC action that got him fired. It was ABC responding to the public outcry because of his comments. When the market spoke and Nextstar/Sinclair dropped him, the writing was on the wall. Kimmel did this to himself, and it's good to see companies finally responding to actual public demands instead of being bullied into compliance by the leftist media mafia.
Again, trying to characterize that as a definitive statement of fact feels like a reach. It's far from "unequivocal".


What you missed is that nobody laughed. It wasn't a joke, and the audience knew that (dumb as they are). So what was it?

It's called the set up for a joke. (it doesn't have to be factual)


Debatable. That's still not license to say whatever you want.
But depending how you interpret what he said, he wasnt stating a fact.

I expected something blatant when the news of this all happened, then I had to relisten to the clip to understand what people were upset about. I didn't interpret it as him stating a fact and I'd imagine many others didn't either.
Reply Quote
4
WES2006AG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmendeler • 2:54p, 9/18/25
AG
I am sure somebody is about to tell you that quote is being taken out of context somehow.
Reply Quote
7
Lathspell
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmendeler • 2:55p, 9/18/25
AG
So he believed Joe Biden is guilty of crimes that should warrant the death penalty and is calling for due process?

Oh no! The absolute horror! Someone calling for criminals to be tried for their crimes!

Try again.
Reply Quote
8
Mr. White
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fig96 • 2:56p, 9/18/25
fig96 said:
AGC said:
schmendeler said:
AGC said:
fig96 said:
Ag87H2O said:
Sapper Redux said:
Ag87H2O said:




These posts show some of the left's hypocrisy, clearly explains the FCC position, and then lays out the actual law. The networks were well within their rights and even obligation to cancel Kimmel. He thought he was bulletproof and found out otherwise.


Sorry, but what specifically that Kimmel said was lying about a crime? When he spoke we had no idea about the background of the suspect who was already in custody. Kimmel was speaking about the attacks by the right on "the left" as a group following the murder without any knowledge about the motivations of the killer. That's not a lie. That's not causing harm to a criminal investigation. This is such pathetic deliberate misuse of a statute to go after someone Trump doesn't like. I could point to Sinclair stations which were required to run Boris Epshteyn bits on broadcast network television. You don't think there was a single thing he said that wasn't a lie? Did the FCC threaten to revoke the license of any Sinclair station for running it?

Doesn't matter whether or not he knew about the background of the suspect. Just goes to show how dumb he was to say what he said. Kimmel stated unequivocably that the "MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". He stated that as a fact, even though it wasn't true.

Any reasonable person doesn't make that kind of slanderous statement without being 100% certain. He was being intentionally inflammatory, which certainly harmful to the pubic interest, especially at a time when tensions are already off the charts high.

In the end, it wasn't any threat of FCC action that got him fired. It was ABC responding to the public outcry because of his comments. When the market spoke and Nextstar/Sinclair dropped him, the writing was on the wall. Kimmel did this to himself, and it's good to see companies finally responding to actual public demands instead of being bullied into compliance by the leftist media mafia.

Again, trying to characterize that as a definitive statement of fact feels like a reach. It's far from "unequivocal".


What you missed is that nobody laughed. It wasn't a joke, and the audience knew that (dumb as they are). So what was it?

It's called the set up for a joke. (it doesn't have to be factual)


Debatable. That's still not license to say whatever you want.

But depending how you interpret what he said, he wasnt stating a fact.

I expected something blatant when the news of this all happened, then I had to relisten to the clip to understand what people were upset about. I didn't interpret it as him stating a fact and I'd imagine many others didn't either.

There ARE a lot of people with brain damage, yes.
Reply Quote
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lathspell • 2:57p, 9/18/25
AG
Lathspell said:
So he believed Joe Biden is guilty of crimes that should warrant the death penalty and is calling for due process?

Oh no! The absolute horror! Someone calling for criminals to be tried for their crimes!

Try again.


I honestly believe in your world what he said was perfectly reasonable. And that's why we're ****ed.
Reply Quote
8
Lathspell
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmendeler • 3:00p, 9/18/25
AG
And you use a single throwaway comment he made to justify his murder and the murder of every other reasonable Christian in this country.

If you don't see the difference between a throwaway comment, that could be claimed as hyperbole, and the thousands of videos posted celebrating his death and mocking his widow and kids, that is why we're ****ed.

It's been over a week since his assassination. Let's compare burned cities, murders, and violence committed by the right with what the left did during the "Summer of Love".

I'll wait...

ETA: Also, he never claimed Biden should be thrown in jail or tried for treason because of differing views. He called for it based on the actions of Biden. Again... there is no middle ground when you can't see the difference.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lathspell • 3:03p, 9/18/25
AG
I'll kindly ask you to show where i did anything close to justify his murder. You can cut that **** out right now.
Reply Quote
9
fig96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mr. White • 3:04p, 9/18/25
AG
Mr. White said:
fig96 said:
AGC said:
schmendeler said:
AGC said:
fig96 said:
Ag87H2O said:
Sapper Redux said:
Ag87H2O said:




These posts show some of the left's hypocrisy, clearly explains the FCC position, and then lays out the actual law. The networks were well within their rights and even obligation to cancel Kimmel. He thought he was bulletproof and found out otherwise.


Sorry, but what specifically that Kimmel said was lying about a crime? When he spoke we had no idea about the background of the suspect who was already in custody. Kimmel was speaking about the attacks by the right on "the left" as a group following the murder without any knowledge about the motivations of the killer. That's not a lie. That's not causing harm to a criminal investigation. This is such pathetic deliberate misuse of a statute to go after someone Trump doesn't like. I could point to Sinclair stations which were required to run Boris Epshteyn bits on broadcast network television. You don't think there was a single thing he said that wasn't a lie? Did the FCC threaten to revoke the license of any Sinclair station for running it?

Doesn't matter whether or not he knew about the background of the suspect. Just goes to show how dumb he was to say what he said. Kimmel stated unequivocably that the "MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". He stated that as a fact, even though it wasn't true.

Any reasonable person doesn't make that kind of slanderous statement without being 100% certain. He was being intentionally inflammatory, which certainly harmful to the pubic interest, especially at a time when tensions are already off the charts high.

In the end, it wasn't any threat of FCC action that got him fired. It was ABC responding to the public outcry because of his comments. When the market spoke and Nextstar/Sinclair dropped him, the writing was on the wall. Kimmel did this to himself, and it's good to see companies finally responding to actual public demands instead of being bullied into compliance by the leftist media mafia.

Again, trying to characterize that as a definitive statement of fact feels like a reach. It's far from "unequivocal".


What you missed is that nobody laughed. It wasn't a joke, and the audience knew that (dumb as they are). So what was it?

It's called the set up for a joke. (it doesn't have to be factual)


Debatable. That's still not license to say whatever you want.

But depending how you interpret what he said, he wasnt stating a fact.

I expected something blatant when the news of this all happened, then I had to relisten to the clip to understand what people were upset about. I didn't interpret it as him stating a fact and I'd imagine many others didn't either.

There ARE a lot of people with brain damage, yes.

It's ok, I'm sure you can take some adult education classes to better understand the nuances of the English language.
Reply Quote
Lathspell
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmendeler • 3:08p, 9/18/25
AG
schmendeler said:
I'll kindly ask you to show where i did anything close to justify his murder. You can cut that **** out right now.

When you are playing whataboutism games after the assassination of a peaceful man by pointing out things he said... what else do you view that as?

You know what you can do? Let it go. Maybe, if you didn't like Charlie Kirk, but are a hallf-way decent human being, you just refrain from throwing **** into the fire. Perhaps actually practice the liberal worldview you claim to possess and sympathize with the millions who feel hopeless, genuinely afraid for their lives, and in mourning.

But no. You opt for whataboutisms. I will read that and understand it for what it is, a justification for the assassination of an innocent man.
Reply Quote
10
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lathspell • 3:11p, 9/18/25
AG
Lathspell said:
schmendeler said:
I'll kindly ask you to show where i did anything close to justify his murder. You can cut that **** out right now.

When you are playing whataboutism games after the assassination of a peaceful man by pointing out things he said... what else do you view that as?

You know what you can do? Let it go. Maybe, if you didn't like Charlie Kirk, but are a hallf-way decent human being, you just refrain from throwing **** into the fire. Perhaps actually practice the liberal worldview you claim to possess and sympathize with the millions who feel hopeless, genuinely afraid for their lives, and in mourning.

But no. You opt for whataboutisms. I will read that and understand it for what it is, a justification for the assassination of an innocent man.


You might want to brush up on your reading skills and try to follow the thread of the discussion.

You made a claim that those on the right never make calls for violence against those on the left. I showed in one quote that that assertion was bull***** I never implied or even hinted that someone's murder was justified.
Reply Quote
8
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fig96 • 3:11p, 9/18/25
AG
fig96 said:
AGC said:
schmendeler said:
AGC said:
fig96 said:
Ag87H2O said:
Sapper Redux said:
Ag87H2O said:




These posts show some of the left's hypocrisy, clearly explains the FCC position, and then lays out the actual law. The networks were well within their rights and even obligation to cancel Kimmel. He thought he was bulletproof and found out otherwise.


Sorry, but what specifically that Kimmel said was lying about a crime? When he spoke we had no idea about the background of the suspect who was already in custody. Kimmel was speaking about the attacks by the right on "the left" as a group following the murder without any knowledge about the motivations of the killer. That's not a lie. That's not causing harm to a criminal investigation. This is such pathetic deliberate misuse of a statute to go after someone Trump doesn't like. I could point to Sinclair stations which were required to run Boris Epshteyn bits on broadcast network television. You don't think there was a single thing he said that wasn't a lie? Did the FCC threaten to revoke the license of any Sinclair station for running it?

Doesn't matter whether or not he knew about the background of the suspect. Just goes to show how dumb he was to say what he said. Kimmel stated unequivocably that the "MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". He stated that as a fact, even though it wasn't true.

Any reasonable person doesn't make that kind of slanderous statement without being 100% certain. He was being intentionally inflammatory, which certainly harmful to the pubic interest, especially at a time when tensions are already off the charts high.

In the end, it wasn't any threat of FCC action that got him fired. It was ABC responding to the public outcry because of his comments. When the market spoke and Nextstar/Sinclair dropped him, the writing was on the wall. Kimmel did this to himself, and it's good to see companies finally responding to actual public demands instead of being bullied into compliance by the leftist media mafia.
Again, trying to characterize that as a definitive statement of fact feels like a reach. It's far from "unequivocal".


What you missed is that nobody laughed. It wasn't a joke, and the audience knew that (dumb as they are). So what was it?

It's called the set up for a joke. (it doesn't have to be factual)


Debatable. That's still not license to say whatever you want.
But depending how you interpret what he said, he wasnt stating a fact.

I expected something blatant when the news of this all happened, then I had to relisten to the clip to understand what people were upset about. I didn't interpret it as him stating a fact and I'd imagine many others didn't either.


That's what happens when you're a caustic person. If he was an amiable guy that didn't say horrid things the past decade, he'd get the benefit of the doubt and we could argue interpretation. That's not him, and he hasn't been close to that line for a long time. Probably a good chance to look in the mirror instead of watching everyone else do a principal skinner 'am I wrong' meme to protect him.
Reply Quote
amercer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lathspell • 3:12p, 9/18/25
AG
I'm all for not speaking ill of the dead. But it's kind of on the people who wait to make him a saint to explain why all the things he said don't mean what they very plainly seem to mean.
Reply Quote
5
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to amercer • 3:14p, 9/18/25
AG
amercer said:
I'm all for not speaking ill of the dead. But it's kind of on the people who wait to make him a saint to explain why all the things he said don't mean what they very plainly seem to mean.


If you're not, stop posting. Otherwise please double down and continue to explain yourself.
Reply Quote
aTmAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 3:14p, 9/18/25
AG
Sapper Redux said:
aTmAg said:
Sapper Redux said:
aTmAg said:
DannyDuberstein said:
swimmerbabe11 said:
suburban cowboy said:
Madmarttigan said:
I don't give a rats ass about Jimmy Kimmel.

That being said a bunch of snowflakes in here celebrating **** the liberals used to do.

This was such a nothing burger bit said by him.

I'm tired of snowflakes on both sides.



One side is killing their opposition. One isn't.



what happened to Melissa Hortman?


You mean the lady killed by the guy appointed by a democrat governor, reappointed by Tim Waltz, had No Kings flyers in his car, and wrote in his confession that Tim Waltz instructed him to do it? I don't think this is rhe MAGA man you think he is.

Of course, nobody REALLY thinks Tim Waltz instructed him to do it. But that and the rest shows this is more a case of a guy being nuttier than squirl poop, than a case of "conservative violence"?


He had a hit list of 45 Democrats. Yes, he was a conservative and he might have been insane (or trying to make a case for court). The two are not separate

Let's assume that he was perfectly sane... There has been nothing said by republican pundits or politicians that called Melissa Hortman "Stalin" or "Lenin" who was trying to "destroy democracy". There was nothing being "passed down" that could ever be considered "suggestions" for anybody to kill her. That's why there wasn't a huge pile of conservatives on social media celebrating her death and calling him a "hero". Most people had never even heard of her. It's just that this guy was a bankrupt jackass, who had given up on life, and wanted to go out in a twisted blaze of glory.

Meanwhile on your side, you have a normal kid who was radicalized in a short time to think that Trump is Hitler, that conservatives are Nazis, and that Charlie Kirk was basically Goebbles. Which is something that lib pundits have been saying non-stop for a decade. All that is needed is for somebody to "step up" and be the left's modern Stauffenberg. So that's why we DO have a crap-ton of leftists celebrating Kirk's death. Who wouldn't celebrate the death of Goebbles? So those dumbasses who actually thinks that Kirk=Goebbles celebrate. That is why the left punditry and political class deserve much more of the blame.

Wait, so you've missed the last 17 years of calling every liberal or center left person a Marxist who hates America and wants to destroy/imprison/kill all of their opponents? It doesn't have to be Hortman specifically called out to be a massive target. She was a visible leader of the state's Democrats. The inability to ever admit any wrongdoing on the right is just amazing from folks like you. It's childish.

I could find video right now of leftist protesters chanting "death to America" from a few months ago. Bernie Sanders, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Zohran Mamdani, and many others CALL THEMSELVES "democratic" socialists all the time. And rather than be scorned, they have the overwhelming support of the rest of the democratic party. When Trump proclaimed that "we'd never be a socialist nation", during the State of the Union, the entire democratic side sat angrily on their hands. While no prominent politicians calls themselves "marxist", that is not due to fear of attack, but of fear of losing elections. Yet there are plenty of "respected" leftist academics who are public and proud communist/marxists. They don't care about elections, so they can be more honest about their positions. And they have done so for DECADES. They don't get attacked or even lose their jobs. There is nothing dangerous about calling somebody a socialist or marxist in this country. People call themselves these things all the time and have no fear of walking around in public.

Yet, can you name a single republican politician or academic that calls themselves "fascist"? I can't find any. AI can't either. As evident by the democrat's own words and actions, "fascist" is 1000 worse than "socialist", "communist", or even "Marxist".
Reply Quote
7
fig96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 3:15p, 9/18/25
AG
AGC said:
fig96 said:
AGC said:
schmendeler said:
AGC said:
fig96 said:
Ag87H2O said:
Sapper Redux said:
Ag87H2O said:




These posts show some of the left's hypocrisy, clearly explains the FCC position, and then lays out the actual law. The networks were well within their rights and even obligation to cancel Kimmel. He thought he was bulletproof and found out otherwise.


Sorry, but what specifically that Kimmel said was lying about a crime? When he spoke we had no idea about the background of the suspect who was already in custody. Kimmel was speaking about the attacks by the right on "the left" as a group following the murder without any knowledge about the motivations of the killer. That's not a lie. That's not causing harm to a criminal investigation. This is such pathetic deliberate misuse of a statute to go after someone Trump doesn't like. I could point to Sinclair stations which were required to run Boris Epshteyn bits on broadcast network television. You don't think there was a single thing he said that wasn't a lie? Did the FCC threaten to revoke the license of any Sinclair station for running it?

Doesn't matter whether or not he knew about the background of the suspect. Just goes to show how dumb he was to say what he said. Kimmel stated unequivocably that the "MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". He stated that as a fact, even though it wasn't true.

Any reasonable person doesn't make that kind of slanderous statement without being 100% certain. He was being intentionally inflammatory, which certainly harmful to the pubic interest, especially at a time when tensions are already off the charts high.

In the end, it wasn't any threat of FCC action that got him fired. It was ABC responding to the public outcry because of his comments. When the market spoke and Nextstar/Sinclair dropped him, the writing was on the wall. Kimmel did this to himself, and it's good to see companies finally responding to actual public demands instead of being bullied into compliance by the leftist media mafia.

Again, trying to characterize that as a definitive statement of fact feels like a reach. It's far from "unequivocal".


What you missed is that nobody laughed. It wasn't a joke, and the audience knew that (dumb as they are). So what was it?

It's called the set up for a joke. (it doesn't have to be factual)


Debatable. That's still not license to say whatever you want.

But depending how you interpret what he said, he wasnt stating a fact.

I expected something blatant when the news of this all happened, then I had to relisten to the clip to understand what people were upset about. I didn't interpret it as him stating a fact and I'd imagine many others didn't either.


That's what happens when you're a caustic person. If he was an amiable guy that didn't say horrid things the past decade, he'd get the benefit of the doubt and we could argue interpretation. That's not him, and he hasn't been close to that line for a long time. Probably a good chance to look in the mirror instead of watching everyone else do a principal skinner 'am I wrong' meme to protect him.

I don't like the guy, I've actually heard he's kind of an *******. That doesn't affect how I heard what he said.

Did he intend something else? Maybe, I have no idea. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a statement that could be interpreted differently by different people and not this cut and dry statement of fact.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.