2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on September 17, 2025, 02:56:34 PM
-
With Charlie Kirk being executed, many who celebrated have either been fired from their job, suspended pending investigation, etc...And many didn't do so while at work or in a work uniform, etc...
Jimmy Kimmel constantly promoted fake news about Russia Hoax, Ukraine Hoax, etc...and has never been repremanded. But saying the shooter is MAGA got him in deep trouble.
So far, 2 colleges expelled students for their response celebrating Kirks execution. 1 vid that I saw, the guy was non-violent, as in he never touched anyone or destroyed property. I didn't watch the other one of the female.
Office Max employee fired for not printing a Kirk vigil posters.
When people were being assaulted, their property damaged, denied entry, forced to hide, colleges did little. Kirk was assault and his property stolen/damaged on video too.
Is it that the DOJ is now not letting people get away with things? So employers/colleges are being more strict? When people were being assaulted, their property damaged, denied entry, forced to hide, colleges did little.
And what's even more interesting is that no one is citing the 1A. I know it doesn't apply to private entities, but you know how liberals are and will claim their 1A is being violated.
-
On a subconscious level they understand that it’s necessary to let off some steam before the turning point becomes the tipping point.
-
I was actually thinking about this more and it's a really good question.
Why this sudden about-face after so many years of promoting horrible behavior?
Economics? Self-preservation instincts? A middle management revolt against senile corporate overlords?
-
At least 20 years overdue.
That’s why it’s gotten to the point of political assassination being cheered by a large swath of the country.
-
Congress seems to be the only institution that hasn't changed.
They have actually accelerated ramming through bad legislation.
-
Congress seems to be the only institution that hasn't changed.
They have actually accelerated ramming through bad legislation.
Isn't acceleration a change in velocity?
So, Congress has in fact changed.
-
Isn't acceleration a change in velocity?
So, Congress has in fact changed.
It's a good thing my Flapp filter is working.
I would have totally missed that.
-
It's a good thing my Flapp filter is working.
I would have totally missed that.
Still trying to keep you honest -- or at least reasonably accurate. :geekdanc:
-
Still trying to keep you honest -- or at least reasonably accurate. :geekdanc:
I’m not lying. Reality just makes you uncomfortable for some reason.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5aI8nwmkkI&t=1s
-
I’m not lying. Reality just makes you uncomfortable for some reason.
You're starting to sound like those delusional transgenders who demand everyone accept, affirm and live in their delusions.
You believing something to be reality doesn't make it so.
-
Weird, starbucks is telling employees they have to write "charlie kirk" on cups if thats the name given. Some refused prior to
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Weird, starbucks is telling employees they have to write "charlie kirk" on cups if thats the name given. Some refused prior to
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Not weird.
While it seems like a cool way to memorialize someone, it's a pain for employees trying to give the correct coffee to waiting customers.
Maybe something less repetitive like 'Charlie [your_last_name] Kirk?'
Or, the servers could keep a roll of sequential number stickers and tell the customers to remember their number when the name and sticker # is called?
Seems like StarBuck's would have devised a way to do this long ago, since this is not the first time this has happened.
-
Weird, starbucks is telling employees they have to write "charlie kirk" on cups if thats the name given. Some refused prior to
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
It’s definitely weird. Flapp is just a soulless NPC who apologizes for the corporate overlords every chance he gets.
-
It’s definitely weird. Flapp is just a soulless NPC who apologizes for the corporate overlords every chance he gets.
Do you have something constructive to offer, EEF?
-
Do you have something constructive to offer, EEF?
Have you ever had an original thought? Or do you watch corporate news and just copy whatever they say?
-
With Charlie Kirk being executed, many who celebrated have either been fired from their job, suspended pending investigation, etc...And many didn't do so while at work or in a work uniform, etc...
Jimmy Kimmel constantly promoted fake news about Russia Hoax, Ukraine Hoax, etc...and has never been repremanded. But saying the shooter is MAGA got him in deep trouble.
So far, 2 colleges expelled students for their response celebrating Kirks execution. 1 vid that I saw, the guy was non-violent, as in he never touched anyone or destroyed property. I didn't watch the other one of the female.
Office Max employee fired for not printing a Kirk vigil posters.
When people were being assaulted, their property damaged, denied entry, forced to hide, colleges did little. Kirk was assault and his property stolen/damaged on video too.
Is it that the DOJ is now not letting people get away with things? So employers/colleges are being more strict? When people were being assaulted, their property damaged, denied entry, forced to hide, colleges did little.
And what's even more interesting is that no one is citing the 1A. I know it doesn't apply to private entities, but you know how liberals are and will claim their 1A is being violated.
Most of the time assaults/damages on campus are going to be enforced by local police, not federal police so I don't think the DOJ is that big of a factor. The fear of losing federal funding might have a bigger role though.
With Kimmel specifically though it can't be ignored that the FCC basically unconstitutionally threatened ABC to revoke it's broadcast license.
This could represent a shift in society but I wouldn't put a big wager on that. Could be fear of a backlash of some sort (violence, Trump's wrath, loss of customers). Maybe it has a different feel due to the fact Kirk had no authority, he just spoke his mind. Compare that to killing/attempting to kill politicians or CEOs. The killing of Kirk is just emotion compared to the attempted assassination which makes logical sense due to the authority a president has.
-
Most of the time assaults/damages on campus are going to be enforced by local police, not federal police so I don't think the DOJ is that big of a factor. The fear of losing federal funding might have a bigger role though.
With Kimmel specifically though it can't be ignored that the FCC basically unconstitutionally threatened ABC to revoke it's broadcast license.
This could represent a shift in society but I wouldn't put a big wager on that. Could be fear of a backlash of some sort (violence, Trump's wrath, loss of customers). Maybe it has a different feel due to the fact Kirk had no authority, he just spoke his mind. Compare that to killing/attempting to kill politicians or CEOs. The killing of Kirk is just emotion compared to the attempted assassination which makes logical sense due to the authority a president has.
The FCC did NOT threaten ABC's license. They simply said the FCC would investigate the Kimmel comments. No threats to revoke licenses were made in any way. Before a license is revoked, there would be hearings, settlement meetings and so on. Only in the event the broadcaster was found to be continually violating their license and made no effort to correct it would the FCC move to revoke that license. In this case, the broadcaster cited reasons other than the FCC for preempting Kimmel's show, mostly due to advertising revenue and marketing demographics.
The FCC was created to ensure public broadcast companies served the public interest and adhered to set standards of decency and integrity. Because they are a regulatory agency, they can dictate that any political candidate provided airtime by a broadcaster must give equal time to any other candidates that oppose the first one. They also set decency standards so that certain subjects or images can only be aired late in the evening after very young are in bed or the TV is off. That's not censorship. It's setting rules to make the industry more sensitive to the public's interest.
Kimmel was telling everyone watching 100% verifiable lies and using the lies to demonize one political group -- MAGA Republicans. That's NOT in the public's interest. Prove me wrong.
"They have a license granted by us at the FCC that comes with it an
obligation to operate in the public interest," Carr told Johnson. "I mean,
look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies
can find ways to change conduct to take actions, frankly on Kimmel, or
there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead." Carr likened
Kimmel’s comment to "news distortion," which is against FCC’s
rules for broadcasters.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/sep/18/did-the-fcc-cancel-jimmy-kimmel/
-
With Kimmel specifically though it can't be ignored that the FCC basically unconstitutionally threatened ABC to revoke its broadcast license.
WAY wrong! The FCC has always been very concerned about distortion of the news - it’s a very big deal, and Kibble was way into this territory - egregiously so - by the time the FCC cleared its throat. This is from the FCC broadcast manual:
“However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene.”
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#DISTORT
Leftist have enjoyed a free ride in completely subverting and defiling our civil society for so long, they think it’s their bleeding right.
Well, no, now that they no longer have full subversive control of every lever of power, they are squealing like the pigs they are. Get used to it, because they are OVER.
Music to our ears.
-
WAY wrong! The FCC has always been very concerned about distortion of the news - it’s a very big deal, and Kibble was way into this territory - egregiously so - by the time the FCC cleared its throat. This is from the FCC broadcast manual:
“However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene.”
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#DISTORT
Leftist have enjoyed a free ride in completely subverting and defiling our civil society for so long, they think it’s their bleeding right.
Well, no, now that they no longer have full subversive control of every lever of power, they are squealing like the pigs they are. Get used to it, because they are OVER.
Music to our ears.
Yes. If the licensee is determined to have intentionally violated the rules under the FCC license agreement, then the license can be revoked. If Kimmel went "rogue", broadcast lies and political attacks, then refused to issue a correction and apology, the licensee has no choice but to take corrective action (preempted Jimmy Kimmel Live! programming). The alternative would be to implicitly condone his statements through inaction thereby becoming a part of the FCC violations putting their license at risk.
-
The FCC did NOT threaten ABC's license. They simply said the FCC would investigate the Kimmel comments. No threats to revoke licenses were made in any way. Before a license is revoked, there would be hearings, settlement meetings and so on. Only in the event the broadcaster was found to be continually violating their license and made no effort to correct it would the FCC move to revoke that license. In this case, the broadcaster cited reasons other than the FCC for preempting Kimmel's show, mostly due to advertising revenue and marketing demographics.
The FCC was created to ensure public broadcast companies served the public interest and adhered to set standards of decency and integrity. Because they are a regulatory agency, they can dictate that any political candidate provided airtime by a broadcaster must give equal time to any other candidates that oppose the first one. They also set decency standards so that certain subjects or images can only be aired late in the evening after very young are in bed or the TV is off. That's not censorship. It's setting rules to make the industry more sensitive to the public's interest.
Kimmel was telling everyone watching 100% verifiable lies and using the lies to demonize one political group -- MAGA Republicans. That's NOT in the public's interest. Prove me wrong.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/sep/18/did-the-fcc-cancel-jimmy-kimmel/
It was absolutely a threat, Brendan Carr didn't simply say "we are investigating complaints of a violation of broadcast rules", he said "There's calls for Kimmel to be fired," Carr said. "I think you could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this.". He also said "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." A broadcast company is absolutely going to take that as a threat. If ABC were going to fire Kimmel on their own because they didn't like the comments then great but now the FCC chairman with his stupid threat makes Kimmel a martyr and his return looks like a win for them.
Then Pam Bondi chimes in with her stupid mouth about prosecuting hate speech but that's a separate issue. She should be removed from her position for such a comment, sounded like a far lefty.
Be realistic here, if the FCC were really going start investigating broadcast companies all the way down to the level of comedians, they would all have their licenses revoked, Fox included. Think of the precedent this creates, all this does is give the next democrat president license to abuse government control. What happens when a democrat is in charge and goes after AM Talk Radio who has no shortage of content not in the public's interest?
Conservatives were rightly upset when the government pressured Facebook and when the IRS targeted the Tea Party but suddenly the values against government abuse of power evaporate?
-
It was absolutely a threat, Brendan Carr didn't simply say "we are investigating complaints of a violation of broadcast rules", he said "There's calls for Kimmel to be fired," Carr said. "I think you could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this.". He also said "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." A broadcast company is absolutely going to take that as a threat. If ABC were going to fire Kimmel on their own because they didn't like the comments then great but now the FCC chairman with his stupid threat makes Kimmel a martyr and his return looks like a win for them.
Then Pam Bondi chimes in with her stupid mouth about prosecuting hate speech but that's a separate issue. She should be removed from her position for such a comment, sounded like a far lefty.
Be realistic here, if the FCC were really going start investigating broadcast companies all the way down to the level of comedians, they would all have their licenses revoked, Fox included. Think of the precedent this creates, all this does is give the next democrat president license to abuse government control. What happens when a democrat is in charge and goes after AM Talk Radio who has no shortage of content not in the public's interest?
Conservatives were rightly upset when the government pressured Facebook and when the IRS targeted the Tea Party but suddenly the values against government abuse of power evaporate?
If a comedian breaks FCC rules, then YES, he or she will be the reason for the investigation. How can they not be? You act as if he was some unknown doing standup in a small night club. The man was hosting the late night show on ABC since January 2003. That's not some unknown comedian or show guest.
Kimmel is not a comedian. Nothing he said in that Charlie Kirk monologue was remotely funny, nor was he delivering the lines as jokes. He told already debunked lies about the shooting suspect being MAGA and accused MAGA Republicans of trying to score political points by distancing him from the movement. Nothing about it was "comedy."
He's never been funny in my book -- all the way back to The Man Show and Win Ben Stein's Money. I've never seen a complete showing of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, because he's just not funny.
-
It was absolutely a threat, Brendan Carr didn't simply say "we are investigating complaints of a violation of broadcast rules", he said "There's calls for Kimmel to be fired," Carr said. "I think you could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this.". He also said "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." A broadcast company is absolutely going to take that as a threat. If ABC were going to fire Kimmel on their own because they didn't like the comments then great but now the FCC chairman with his stupid threat makes Kimmel a martyr and his return looks like a win for them.
Then Pam Bondi chimes in with her stupid mouth about prosecuting hate speech but that's a separate issue. She should be removed from her position for such a comment, sounded like a far lefty.
Be realistic here, if the FCC were really going start investigating broadcast companies all the way down to the level of comedians, they would all have their licenses revoked, Fox included. Think of the precedent this creates, all this does is give the next democrat president license to abuse government control. What happens when a democrat is in charge and goes after AM Talk Radio who has no shortage of content not in the public's interest?
Conservatives were rightly upset when the government pressured Facebook and when the IRS targeted the Tea Party but suddenly the values against government abuse of power evaporate?
At times I wonder if you even read what you type. You're own post counters your argument.
-
Side note, I only saw parts of Kimmels comeback and he's doing what someone does here. Deflecting the issue. Then he wants sympathy as he too and his family have received threats as well.
-
"Who's jimmy kimmel?" is what I say when someone mentions him to me.
Not that I don't know who he is.
I don't care.
Even before the Charlie Kirk tragedy.
-
WARNING: graphic pictures!!!
edited by macsak
Don’t know about you, but I kinda like this look on these “guys?”
https://channel2now.com/2025/09/24/article/news/crime/graphic-image-of-dallas-ice-facility-shooting-suspect-joshua-jahn-after-taking-his-own-life-8100-block-of-north-stemmons-freeway/
Very fetching.
-
clips...
https://channel2now.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/G1n3HBgWsAEakcu.jpeg?v=1758729551
-
clips...
https://channel2now.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/G1n3HBgWsAEakcu.jpeg?v=1758729551
Yes - one source identified as 8mm Mauser, and photos seem to match the bolt action rifle of the same name. Sorry, I’m ignorant of these rifles - but sure seems they have a real hard-on for Mausers.
Maybe the rifle speaks to their inner Nazi.
PS - My apologies macsak for making you put the warning there - will make sure to not make that mistake again.
-
Yes - one source identified as 8mm Mauser, and photos seem to match the bolt action rifle of the same name. Sorry, I’m ignorant of these rifles - but sure seems they have a real hard-on for Mausers.
Maybe the rifle speaks to their inner Nazi.
PS - My apologies macsak for making you put the warning there - will make sure to not make that mistake again.
Perhaps somebody got a surplus of Mauser rifles and has been supplying transtifa with them to carry out these shootings.
The rifle of Charlie Kirk's assassin was said to have been registered to his grandfather but has the grandfather himself confirmed that?
-
Perhaps somebody got a surplus of Mauser rifles and has been supplying transtifa with them to carry out these shootings.
The rifle of Charlie Kirk's assassin was said to have been registered to his grandfather but has the grandfather himself confirmed that?
If you believe the chats, then he stated his father was asking about his grandfathers rifle. As he prob saw it on TV and it looked like it. Which is what prompted the father to ask about it.
-
Yes - one source identified as 8mm Mauser, and photos seem to match the bolt action rifle of the same name. Sorry, I’m ignorant of these rifles - but sure seems they have a real hard-on for Mausers.
Maybe the rifle speaks to their inner Nazi.
PS - My apologies macsak for making you put the warning there - will make sure to not make that mistake again.
Or their inner Chinese Communist.
IMO, it looks like 762x54R ammo for a Mosin-Nagant or foreign copy.
In the graphic image of the deceased shooter, the rifle looks like a Mosin-Nagant, possibly an M44 carbine. The silver barrel bands look a lot like a China-Produced Type 53. But, Mosin owners have been known to "clean" the finish off their rifles, so the silver parts may not be a clue.
(https://i.imgur.com/6Jbs1rk.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sz26Zdi.jpeg)
-
If a comedian breaks FCC rules, then YES, he or she will be the reason for the investigation. How can they not be? You act as if he was some unknown doing standup in a small night club. The man was hosting the late night show on ABC since January 2003. That's not some unknown comedian or show guest.
Kimmel is not a comedian. Nothing he said in that Charlie Kirk monologue was remotely funny, nor was he delivering the lines as jokes. He told already debunked lies about the shooting suspect being MAGA and accused MAGA Republicans of trying to score political points by distancing him from the movement. Nothing about it was "comedy."
He's never been funny in my book -- all the way back to The Man Show and Win Ben Stein's Money. I've never seen a complete showing of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, because he's just not funny.
If the FCC actually had some record of going after comedians then maybe you could make the case it was a routine investigation into FCC rules. Of course that would mean you are endorsing unelected officials who pass rules with the strength of law.
As I said earlier, many stations would have lost their licenses long ago if the FCC actually went after every network which said something false. Who goes to Kimmel for news anyway, his show is a stand up entertainment with occasional crappy political commentary. Show me all the other stations that had to fire people or lost their license because something was said. Can you find a single incident of the FCC taking action for a station broadcasting false information?
I have never liked Kimmel either but this is clearly a political attack and I don't abandon my values against abusive government just because they are going after a guy I don't like.
-
If the FCC actually had some record of going after comedians then maybe you could make the case it was a routine investigation into FCC rules. Of course that would mean you are endorsing unelected officials who pass rules with the strength of law.
As I said earlier, many stations would have lost their licenses long ago if the FCC actually went after every network which said something false. Who goes to Kimmel for news anyway, his show is a stand up entertainment with occasional crappy political commentary. Show me all the other stations that had to fire people or lost their license because something was said. Can you find a single incident of the FCC taking action for a station broadcasting false information?
I have never liked Kimmel either but this is clearly a political attack and I don't abandon my values against abusive government just because they are going after a guy I don't like.
First, you have no idea what you are saying. Regulators do not "pass'' rules. The proposed rules are posted, comments are solicited, changes are made if needed, and eventually the rule is adopted -- not "passed." Pass implies a vote.
We have unelected officials making policy and rule decisions everyday and at all levels of government. You make it sound like Congress let a bunch of kindergarteners make the rules without any process at all. The rules have as much force as the laws which grant the body to make rules. If the FCC grants licenses based on their rules, then they can surely revoke the licenses based on the same rules. No different than you going to the permit office to get a building permit. They made the rules for building standards in Honolulu County, not the Legislature.
You're kind of dense, huh? I already said the FCC investigates, and if the infraction was satisfied with a correction, apology and/or fine, no licenses are revoked. The View was hit with their lies, probably by the network's legal department, and forced to make corrections and apologizing during the next show. This happened at least twice recently. The FCC didn't have to do anything, because the network recognized the infraction and took immediate action.
Most people/networks are smart enough not to blatantly dare the FCC to force them to follow the rules. Kimmel is a special kind of idiot -- but that's what his career has been built on, so not a surprise.
As for the FCC saying they would not let Kimmel's LIES AND POLITICAL ATTACKS during his monologue go unpunished was not a political move. it's a response to Kimmel's political comments. The response would have been the same if his comments used profanity that's not allowed. The rules are finally being enforced after these late night party hacks have been getting away with it for so long. It's driving the Left (and Leftist sympathizers like you) livid.
-
Don't care about Jimmy. His ratings were in the toilet.
This is the type of cancellation I've been waiting for.
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!qpKp!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4fa6ff64-6330-49aa-80a1-3c4828c5984e_1116x1112.jpeg)
-
Don't care about Jimmy. His ratings were in the toilet.
This is the type of cancellation I've been waiting for.
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!qpKp!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4fa6ff64-6330-49aa-80a1-3c4828c5984e_1116x1112.jpeg)
Now that’s a face just made for orange jumpsuits.
-
Don't care about Jimmy. His ratings were in the toilet.
This is the type of cancellation I've been waiting for.
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!qpKp!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4fa6ff64-6330-49aa-80a1-3c4828c5984e_1116x1112.jpeg)
I hope it doesn't stop with him. Better not.
-
First, you have no idea what you are saying. Regulators do not "pass'' rules. The proposed rules are posted, comments are solicited, changes are made if needed, and eventually the rule is adopted -- not "passed." Pass implies a vote.
We have unelected officials making policy and rule decisions everyday and at all levels of government. You make it sound like Congress let a bunch of kindergarteners make the rules without any process at all. The rules have as much force as the laws which grant the body to make rules. If the FCC grants licenses based on their rules, then they can surely revoke the licenses based on the same rules. No different than you going to the permit office to get a building permit. They made the rules for building standards in Honolulu County, not the Legislature.
You're kind of dense, huh? I already said the FCC investigates, and if the infraction was satisfied with a correction, apology and/or fine, no licenses are revoked. The View was hit with their lies, probably by the network's legal department, and forced to make corrections and apologizing during the next show. This happened at least twice recently. The FCC didn't have to do anything, because the network recognized the infraction and took immediate action.
Most people/networks are smart enough not to blatantly dare the FCC to force them to follow the rules. Kimmel is a special kind of idiot -- but that's what his career has been built on, so not a surprise.
As for the FCC saying they would not let Kimmel's LIES AND POLITICAL ATTACKS during his monologue go unpunished was not a political move. it's a response to Kimmel's political comments. The response would have been the same if his comments used profanity that's not allowed. The rules are finally being enforced after these late night party hacks have been getting away with it for so long. It's driving the Left (and Leftist sympathizers like you) livid.
Interesting the flip in logic here, usually conservatives are against these agencies making policy rules and regulations (EPA, ATF, etc) but now when Trump is in charge they are suddenly defending the process of unelected officials doing just that. I am not saying which way is right or wrong here, just pointing out the inconsistency. Defend the power of the FCC if you want, I am not arguing against it.
I have no problem with the FCC enforcing the rules if the rules are enforced consistently across the board. This is clearly a politically motivated matter not only because Trump is in charge and picked the FCC chairman but because of Trump's conflict of interest in the administrations power to have mergers of media companies approved or denied. Like Trump's suit over CBS which they settled out paying big money to Trump when he clearly had them by the balls due to them needing the Trump administration's approval for the purchase they wanted to make.
It is not sympathy for the left that drives me, it is opposition to corrupt government. Conservatives used to care about corrupt authoritarian government, it is one of our biggest arguments for private firearm ownership but when Daddy Trump comes along you excuse it.
-
Interesting the flip in logic here, usually conservatives are against these agencies making policy rules and regulations (EPA, ATF, etc) but now when Trump is in charge they are suddenly defending the process of unelected officials doing just that. I am not saying which way is right or wrong here, just pointing out the inconsistency. Defend the power of the FCC if you want, I am not arguing against it.
I have no problem with the FCC enforcing the rules if the rules are enforced consistently across the board. This is clearly a politically motivated matter not only because Trump is in charge and picked the FCC chairman but because of Trump's conflict of interest in the administrations power to have mergers of media companies approved or denied. Like Trump's suit over CBS which they settled out paying big money to Trump when he clearly had them by the balls due to them needing the Trump administration's approval for the purchase they wanted to make.
It is not sympathy for the left that drives me, it is opposition to corrupt government. Conservatives used to care about corrupt authoritarian government, it is one of our biggest arguments for private firearm ownership but when Daddy Trump comes along you excuse it.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Just because the previous administration let the late night unfunny comedy shows become anti-MAGA, anti-Conservative, anti-Republican, anti-Christian bullhorns for the Left doesn't mean that this administration's enforcement of the rules are political. They are executing the duties they were elected and appointed to do.
Since when is worsening the divide in our country considered in the interest of the nation?
-
It's hilarious that the people who weaponized the government to a pre-revolutionary state are suddenly concerned about fairness and the rule of law.
Let's be real. They are panicking because they know treason is a hangable offense.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Just because the previous administration let the late night unfunny comedy shows become anti-MAGA, anti-Conservative, anti-Republican, anti-Christian bullhorns for the Left doesn't mean that this administration's enforcement of the rules are political. They are executing the duties they were elected and appointed to do.
Since when is worsening the divide in our country considered in the interest of the nation?
So you expect Trump to come after Fox news soon then? If so I have some oceanfront property in Montana to sell you. :thumbsup:
-
It's hilarious that the people who weaponized the government to a pre-revolutionary state are suddenly concerned about fairness and the rule of law.
100% true but it is also hillarious that those who complained the loudest about the weaponization of the government under Biden and Obama are now silent when Trump is doing it.
Let's be real. They are panicking because they know treason is a hangable offense.
Trump would be there on the gallows with the rest of them.
-
So you expect Trump to come after Fox news soon then? If so I have some oceanfront property in Montana to sell you. :thumbsup:
Completely unresponsive.
Typical when you can't come up with anything that makes sense.
Trump is not telling the FCC how do their job. He appointed the chairman, Carr, so he doesn't have to micromanage.
If Fox tells lies that sew seeds of chaos in the public forum, then I expect he would. So far, Fox is the only source we can trust to give us both sides of the news.
-
Trump is not telling the FCC how do their job. He appointed the chairman, Carr, so he doesn't have to micromanage.
Again, I have some oceanfront property in Montana to sell you.
If Fox tells lies that sew seeds of chaos in the public forum, then I expect he would. So far, Fox is the only source we can trust to give us both sides of the news.
There is a big bay and a dock for a boat on the property as well.
-
Again, I have some oceanfront property in Montana to sell you.
That's a very immature and unresponsive comment. Typical.
There is a big bay and a dock for a boat on the property as well.
Again, same BS from you. Do you have any degree of embarrassment when it comes to others calling you out? Because you act like a 5 year old who throws a tantrum to get his way.
-
My theory is that he likes to be called out and humiliated. When one has a job of authority, they might look for other means to be put in place.
-
That's a very immature and unresponsive comment. Typical.
The irony of you trying to call my comment immature,,, :crazy:
Again, same BS from you. Do you have any degree of embarrassment when it comes to others calling you out? Because you act like a 5 year old who throws a tantrum to get his way.
You are hilarious today, just racking up the laughs pretending that you are the mature one here.
-
The irony of you trying to call my comment immature,,, :crazy:
You are hilarious today, just racking up the laughs pretending that you are the mature one here.
Today? :rofl: Check the date it was posted, genius. (Oct 14 was a few days ago).
-
Today? :rofl: Check the date it was posted, genius. (Oct 14 was a few days ago).
And people say I am too technical..
-
And people say I am too technical..
There's a difference between accurate and too technical.
Since you've been accused, one would think you knew the difference.
Your comment was inaccurate. Look it up.
-
There's a difference between accurate and too technical.
Since you've been accused, one would think you knew the difference.
Your comment was inaccurate. Look it up.
Ok, I will give you this win, your scoreboard was looking anemic.
-
Completely unresponsive.
Typical when you can't come up with anything that makes sense.
Trump is not telling the FCC how do their job. He appointed the chairman, Carr, so he doesn't have to micromanage.
If Fox tells lies that sew seeds of chaos in the public forum, then I expect he would. So far, Fox is the only source we can trust to give us both sides of the news.
BTW, Brendan Car said in 2019 "The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of 'public interest'."
So either he had a sudden change of political philosophy or he is doing what Trump wants.
-
BTW, Brendan Car said in 2019 "The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of 'public interest'."
So either he had a sudden change of political philosophy or he is doing what Trump wants.
Explain how Car is "policing speech?"
Hint: He's not. He's responsible for enforcing violations of the FCC rules.
Hint #2: There are no FCC rules that amount to policing speech. The public broadcast system is regulated. When you break the regulations, you get punished. Kimmel is free to speak anything he wants as long as it adheres to those regulations.
Are you this dense? This has to be the 3rd or 4th time I've tried to explain it so you can understand it. Yet, here you are. :crazy:
-
Explain how Car is "policing speech?"
Hint: He's not. He's responsible for enforcing violations of the FCC rules.
What do you think those FCC rules do? Hint: Police speech (on public airways)
Are you this dense? This has to be the 3rd or 4th time I've tried to explain it so you can understand it. Yet, here you are. :crazy:
Repeating a falsehood multiple times makes you more dense, not me.
-
What do you think those FCC rules do? Hint: Police speech (on public airways)
Repeating a falsehood multiple times makes you more dense, not me.
Your reply shows you know nothing about the English language.
When was the last time you read the FCC regulations in order to believe they police speech?
Please point to that passage. I must have skimmed over it.
-
Your reply shows you know nothing about the English language.
When was the last time you read the FCC regulations in order to believe they police speech?
Please point to that passage. I must have skimmed over it.
If I were using your logic I could argue the ATF doesn't regulate firearms.
Not interested in the gaslighting, if the FCC doesn't regulate what is said on the airways why would it even exist? Don't point to an elephant and tell me it isn't an elephant. :crazy:
-
If I were using your logic I could argue the ATF doesn't regulate firearms.
Not interested in the gaslighting, if the FCC doesn't regulate what is said on the airways why would it even exist? Don't point to an elephant and tell me it isn't an elephant. :crazy:
You're an idiot if you think i ever said, "The FCC doesn't regulate the public airways."
-
You're an idiot if you think i ever said, "The FCC doesn't regulate the public airways."
Red herring.
What is being regulated on the public airways is speech in this case.
-
Red herring.
What is being regulated on the public airways is speech in this case.
Wrong.
If you are caught breaking a federal gun law, is being charged and convicted a violation of your 2A rights?
Same with breaking FCC regulations. Not a violation of 1A rights.
Broadcasters are LICENSED. Do you think they have a license to do and say whatever they want? Kimmel lied to the public (provable fact) and used those lies to denigrate more than half the voters in the country. That violated the rules. Period.
-
Wrong.
If you are caught breaking a federal gun law, is being charged and convicted a violation of your 2A rights?
Same with breaking FCC regulations. Not a violation of 1A rights.
Broadcasters are LICENSED. Do you think they have a license to do and say whatever they want? Kimmel lied to the public (provable fact) and used those lies to denigrate more than half the voters in the country. That violated the rules. Period.
Wrong.
If I spam a broadcast frequency with a signal that makes it unusable I have violated an FCC regulation you are correct, the 1st amendment doesn't come into play because it is not speech at issue. When you get into someone saying something on the radio that becomes content which gets into 1st amendment terrirotry. Kind of like how the government can control what time you hold a rally but they cannot control the content of what your message at the rally is.
Whether Kimmel lied is debatable since it requires he said something he knew to be incorrect however he definitely said something that was inaccurate
Taken from the FCC itself
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_information.pdf
"The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster
knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired.
FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual
damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or
other public health and safety authorities from their duties.”"
". It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act
on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal
knowledge."
So for starters, where is the immediate public harm, damage to property or safety or diversion of law enforcement or public health?
Secondly, where is the evidence that Kimmel intentionally said something false? Merely showing he said something that was untrue does not show a violation of the rules.
-
Wrong.
If I spam a broadcast frequency with a signal that makes it unusable I have violated an FCC regulation you are correct, the 1st amendment doesn't come into play because it is not speech at issue. When you get into someone saying something on the radio that becomes content which gets into 1st amendment terrirotry. Kind of like how the government can control what time you hold a rally but they cannot control the content of what your message at the rally is.
Whether Kimmel lied is debatable since it requires he said something he knew to be incorrect however he definitely said something that was inaccurate
Taken from the FCC itself
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_information.pdf
"The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster
knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired.
FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual
damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or
other public health and safety authorities from their duties.”"
". It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act
on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal
knowledge."
So for starters, where is the immediate public harm, damage to property or safety or diversion of law enforcement or public health?
Secondly, where is the evidence that Kimmel intentionally said something false? Merely showing he said something that was untrue does not show a violation of the rules.
Obtuse doesn't begin to cover this BS.
I already explained how they violated the FCC rules. If you want a job as an FCC enforcer, maybe do more in the way of education than 3 minutes on Google.
Go back and read my earlier posts. You obiously can't seem to remember what you read.
-
100% true but it is also hillarious that those who complained the loudest about the weaponization of the government under Biden and Obama are now silent when Trump is doing it.
Trump would be there on the gallows with the rest of them.
They literally had to change the statute of limitations to go after Trump with the E. Jean Kelly thing, and the real estate stuff wasn’t even a crime.
If anything the lawfare against Trump proved how clean he is and how dirty the system has become.
-
They literally had to change the statute of limitations to go after Trump with the E. Jean Kelly thing, and the real estate stuff wasn’t even a crime.
If anything the lawfare against Trump proved how clean he is and how dirty the system has become.
EEF doesn't believe Trump is clean. His TDS prevents him believing in anything other than the accusations he gets from the Liberal websites he goes on.
That much is obvious given his constant attempts to start arguments over Trump and his administration.
Is Trump perfect? Nobody is. He is, however, the only thing standing between freedom and the radical Left's view of a Socialist totalitarian utopia.
If you believe in Socialism, then by definition you don't believe in individual liberty.
-
they changed the charges to get around statute of limitations on the real estate thing too
They literally had to change the statute of limitations to go after Trump with the E. Jean Kelly thing, and the real estate stuff wasn’t even a crime.
If anything the lawfare against Trump proved how clean he is and how dirty the system has become.
-
they changed the charges to get around statute of limitations on the real estate thing too
Don't forget he was never found guilty of any underlying crime to create the felonies they charged him with.
It's called bootstrapping. They pretended they found him guilty of the underlying crime in order to get felony charges in hopes that would turn up an underlying crime conviction.
Lawfare.
-
And they impeached him for the Russia thing that was false to being with and Ukraine. Oh wait, we covered all of this already.
Interesting how facts didn't change. When one goes by facts/logic, things don't change.
-
They literally had to change the statute of limitations to go after Trump with the E. Jean Kelly thing, and the real estate stuff wasn’t even a crime.
If anything the lawfare against Trump proved how clean he is and how dirty the system has become.
I totally agree with you on the first sentence.
The second one is a non-sequitur. What he did was improper even if it didn't amount to a crime. The fact that the DOJ is charging Letitia James for essentially the same type of crime also undercuts the argument that what Trump did was perfectly fine. All the same arguments made about this being lawfare against Trump also work in defense of Letitia James. You also picked the weakest criminal case against Trump, the one that was most egregiously lawfare.
Not everything Trump is doing is necessarily illegal so framing it as being illegal or not is not the right way to approach. President's have flexed their power and increased it many times throughout the history, sometimes when they knew it was unconstitutional despite it not being a crime. Biden's student loan forgiveness was an example.
Understand that my point is not to say there wasn't lawfare against Trump, there absolutely was, but that Trump is engaging in the same type of behavior. Trump didn't drain any swamps, he just put in his own alligators.
-
EEF doesn't believe Trump is clean. His TDS prevents him believing in anything other than the accusations he gets from the Liberal websites he goes on.
That much is obvious given his constant attempts to start arguments over Trump and his administration.
Is Trump perfect? Nobody is. He is, however, the only thing standing between freedom and the radical Left's view of a Socialist totalitarian utopia.
If you believe in Socialism, then by definition you don't believe in individual liberty.
Someone drank the kool-aid.
-
Obtuse doesn't begin to cover this BS.
I already explained how they violated the FCC rules. If you want a job as an FCC enforcer, maybe do more in the way of education than 3 minutes on Google.
Go back and read my earlier posts. You obiously can't seem to remember what you read.
Re-reading your incorrect justifications wouldn't benefit me. I'll take official FCC explanations of rules and Ted Cruz' constitutional credentials over your biased interpretation.
-
I totally agree with you on the first sentence.
The second one is a non-sequitur. What he did was improper even if it didn't amount to a crime. The fact that the DOJ is charging Letitia James for essentially the same type of crime also undercuts the argument that what Trump did was perfectly fine. All the same arguments made about this being lawfare against Trump also work in defense of Letitia James. You also picked the weakest criminal case against Trump, the one that was most egregiously lawfare.
Not everything Trump is doing is necessarily illegal so framing it as being illegal or not is not the right way to approach. President's have flexed their power and increased it many times throughout the history, sometimes when they knew it was unconstitutional despite it not being a crime. Biden's student loan forgiveness was an example.
Understand that my point is not to say there wasn't lawfare against Trump, there absolutely was, but that Trump is engaging in the same type of behavior. Trump didn't drain any swamps, he just put in his own alligators.
Living within the boundaries set by in the law doesn't mean you're clean?
What other standard are you expecting us to live by? You expect him to be perfect -- a standard nobody alive can meet.
Based on your comment, you believe what Trump is doing is the same as the lawfare done to Trump only because it involves those people who targeted Trump politically?
I believe that's called transference. You think because Trump was unfairly dragged into court over purely political motives that now Trump's motives are also political -- even though when he does it he follows the law.
You remind me of the kid who tells the teacher I hit you on the playground after you hit me almost daily until I stood up for myself.
Democrats mastered this move when they refused to live by any religious moral standards, but then called for the resignation of any Conservatives caught doing the same, such as extramarital affairs or having a homosexual partner. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Hunter Biden was proven to have broken several laws, but daddy's staff pardoned him as well as his whole family preemptively. Did that make them all "clean?"
Maybe Trump can do the same for his family and friends since there's a recent precedence? Although, a recent report says all those Biden executive actions, including the pardons, are null and void. :thumbsup:
You should seek professional help. You have a brain leak somewhere.
-
Re-reading your incorrect justifications wouldn't benefit me. I'll take official FCC explanations of rules and Ted Cruz' constitutional credentials over your biased interpretation.
What I posted IS the official FCC explanations of rules.
If you read it, you'd know.
-
Someone drank the kool-aid.
That's your educated response?
TDS is directly tied to a cult. Euphemisms about flavored water aren't necessary.
-
That's your educated response?
TDS is directly tied to a cult. Euphemisms about flavored water aren't necessary.
TDS tied to a cult? Sure. So is MAGA and this worship of Trump.
-
Living within the boundaries set by in the law doesn't mean you're clean?
What other standard are you expecting us to live by? You expect him to be perfect -- a standard nobody alive can meet.
Based on your comment, you believe what Trump is doing is the same as the lawfare done to Trump only because it involves those people who targeted Trump politically?
I believe that's called transference. You think because Trump was unfairly dragged into court over purely political motives that now Trump's motives are also political -- even though when he does it he follows the law.
You remind me of the kid who tells the teacher I hit you on the playground after you hit me almost daily until I stood up for myself.
Democrats mastered this move when they refused to live by any religious moral standards, but then called for the resignation of any Conservatives caught doing the same, such as extramarital affairs or having a homosexual partner. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Hunter Biden was proven to have broken several laws, but daddy's staff pardoned him as well as his whole family preemptively. Did that make them all "clean?"
Maybe Trump can do the same for his family and friends since there's a recent precedence? Although, a recent report says all those Biden executive actions, including the pardons, are null and void. :thumbsup:
You should seek professional help. You have a brain leak somewhere.
Expect Trump to be perfect? Of course not, but not sure why the unattainability of perfection justifies his terrible behavior.
My position is that it is either lawfare or it is following the law. You can't have two identical cases and claim it lawfare when it is done to you and implementing justice when you are the one doing it. If it was wrong to do to Trump it is wrong for Trump to do it back. If it is right to do it to Letitia James then it was right to do to Trump. Have some integrity, pick one or the other and stick with it.
Everything else in your statement is whataboutism.