Topic: It is Tuesday and Tonight I will be watching Jimmy Kimmel LIVE
Anonymous A started this discussion 4 months ago #129,335
Normally I record one or three of the top late night hosts BASED on the Guests they have.I have NO CLUE who Jimmy will have as a guest(s)
Given my stock in Disney DROPPED as a result of ABC Sucking Trumps Micro Penis - I am placing a bet the STOCK Rises back to where it should be - 100 more shares and of course this could go either way.
No doubt Trump will also be a viewer mad as all fuck lol. No question Stephen Colbert and Fallon will watch and enjoy.
OF Course one or more of you could SHORT the Disney Stock.
Meta joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 3 hours later[^] [v] #1,392,196
I wont be since I don't watch television but let us know how it goes!
Erik !saAqdaazn2 joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 32 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,198
Leftist night time talkshow propaganda causes autism
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,206
@previous (Erik !saAqdaazn2)
> Leftist night time talkshow propaganda causes autism
Apparently Right Wing Nut talkshow propaganda invites an invitation to read the US Constitution.
"First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What is broadly considered "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the government cannot ban speech simply because it is offensive or demeans certain groups. The protection extends to hateful ideas and messages
In 1942, the issue of group defamation was first most explicitly brought up in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which surrounded the issue of a Jehovah's Witness, Walter Chaplinsky, who verbally attacked a town marshal for restricting his use of a public sidewalk to protest organized religion by calling him a "damned fascist" and "racketeer.
in 1952, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's group libel law, which punished expression attacking the reputation of racial, ethnic, and religious groups. The defendant was charged for distributing a leaflet that rallied white people in Chicago "to halt the further encroachment, harassment and invasion of white people, their property, neighborhoods and persons, by the Negro.
in 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member's speech and created the "imminent danger" test to determine on what grounds speech can be limited. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
In 1992, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the issue of targeting hate speech arose again when a group of white teenagers burned a cross in the front yard of an African-American family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized symbolic expressions tantamount to fighting words, arousing anger on the basis of race (among other protected classes). Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the ordinance was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment by focusing on particular groups about whom speech was restricted. Scalia explained that "The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[10] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence.[a][ The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.
In 2003, the Supreme Court decided Virginia v. Black.[11] In a 7-2 majority opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court decided that a law which criminalized public cross-burning was unconstitutional.
The court noted that the law would be con
stitutional if the law included an element of specific intent to inspire fear of bodily harm instead of concluding that cross-burning is prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. The court's analysis was based upon the First Amendment's free speech clause.
In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. Snyder, the father of a soldier whose funeral was protested by Phelps' church, sued Phelps for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The issue presented was whether the First Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs from being the basis for civil liability. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.
n June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Justice Samuel Alito wrote:
Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)
Justice Anthony Kennedy also wrote:
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
> Leftist night time talkshow propaganda causes autism
Apparently Right Wing Nut talkshow propaganda invites an invitation to read the US Constitution.
"First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What is broadly considered "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the government cannot ban speech simply because it is offensive or demeans certain groups. The protection extends to hateful ideas and messages
In 1942, the issue of group defamation was first most explicitly brought up in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which surrounded the issue of a Jehovah's Witness, Walter Chaplinsky, who verbally attacked a town marshal for restricting his use of a public sidewalk to protest organized religion by calling him a "damned fascist" and "racketeer.
in 1952, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's group libel law, which punished expression attacking the reputation of racial, ethnic, and religious groups. The defendant was charged for distributing a leaflet that rallied white people in Chicago "to halt the further encroachment, harassment and invasion of white people, their property, neighborhoods and persons, by the Negro.
in 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member's speech and created the "imminent danger" test to determine on what grounds speech can be limited. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
In 1992, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the issue of targeting hate speech arose again when a group of white teenagers burned a cross in the front yard of an African-American family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized symbolic expressions tantamount to fighting words, arousing anger on the basis of race (among other protected classes). Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the ordinance was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment by focusing on particular groups about whom speech was restricted. Scalia explained that "The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[10] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence.[a][ The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.
In 2003, the Supreme Court decided Virginia v. Black.[11] In a 7-2 majority opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court decided that a law which criminalized public cross-burning was unconstitutional.
The court noted that the law would be con
stitutional if the law included an element of specific intent to inspire fear of bodily harm instead of concluding that cross-burning is prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. The court's analysis was based upon the First Amendment's free speech clause.
In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. Snyder, the father of a soldier whose funeral was protested by Phelps' church, sued Phelps for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The issue presented was whether the First Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs from being the basis for civil liability. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.
n June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Justice Samuel Alito wrote:
Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)
Justice Anthony Kennedy also wrote:
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
I am not "Matt"™ !aeNZeP7XP2 joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 12 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,207
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 11 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,208
@previous (I am not "Matt"™ !aeNZeP7XP2)
I often use ChatGPT and have the latest and much better version (Beta) for helping my limited very limited coding skills with C++
I OFTEN Find huge Errors with current ChatGPT for personal use when programming my TVio or Cable box. I am limited to only using the updated version for Coding currently.
I often use ChatGPT and have the latest and much better version (Beta) for helping my limited very limited coding skills with C++
I OFTEN Find huge Errors with current ChatGPT for personal use when programming my TVio or Cable box. I am limited to only using the updated version for Coding currently.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 8 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,209
@OP
Why would anybody choose to short the stock if Bob Iger's fellating of US President Donald J Trump has already been priced in?
Why would anybody choose to short the stock if Bob Iger's fellating of US President Donald J Trump has already been priced in?
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,210
@1,392,198 (Erik !saAqdaazn2)
> Leftist night time talkshow propaganda causes autism
Can the British ever be happy about anything?
> Leftist night time talkshow propaganda causes autism
Can the British ever be happy about anything?
Anonymous F double-posted this 4 months ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,213
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 18 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,215
@1,392,209 (E)
Someone suggested via hummm Anyway Disney got word of planned Stock attacks as well as ''Troubles at several Disney land sites as well as a TV station protest that got out of hand.
Disney of course is playing this corporate game - Needing GOV approval for an acquisition. US Gov has Disney by its NUTS. Trump using political power to stifle Jimmy and Steven Free Speech.
So, the game is Trumps delinquent EGO vs US Constitution Rights.
@previous (F)
> Ask ChatGPT to write C++ to disable ASLR and you’ll quickly see the limitations.
Lots of languages used in different sections of a Satellite system - Depends on vendors of hardware. Fortran which is the ONLY language I have skills in - IS still favored because when it cums to the power budget Fortran often WINS.
They tell me it's not as powerful as C++ Yet when one has very limited power up in space need I say more - ME NOT NOT NOT a Digital Engineer - Analog is my expertise - Transmitters and Receivers Antennas and unfortunately Gyros and Torsion Bars and other CLUNKY Mechanical devices and the small rocket and other Station keeping devices to keep the Infants in space from wondering OFF.
Mechanical means LUBRICATION and in Space Lube keeps trying to find it's way into SPACE - Leaving Bearings and Joints wanting to Freeeeez UP.
Someone suggested via hummm Anyway Disney got word of planned Stock attacks as well as ''Troubles at several Disney land sites as well as a TV station protest that got out of hand.
Disney of course is playing this corporate game - Needing GOV approval for an acquisition. US Gov has Disney by its NUTS. Trump using political power to stifle Jimmy and Steven Free Speech.
So, the game is Trumps delinquent EGO vs US Constitution Rights.
@previous (F)
> Ask ChatGPT to write C++ to disable ASLR and you’ll quickly see the limitations.
Lots of languages used in different sections of a Satellite system - Depends on vendors of hardware. Fortran which is the ONLY language I have skills in - IS still favored because when it cums to the power budget Fortran often WINS.
They tell me it's not as powerful as C++ Yet when one has very limited power up in space need I say more - ME NOT NOT NOT a Digital Engineer - Analog is my expertise - Transmitters and Receivers Antennas and unfortunately Gyros and Torsion Bars and other CLUNKY Mechanical devices and the small rocket and other Station keeping devices to keep the Infants in space from wondering OFF.
Mechanical means LUBRICATION and in Space Lube keeps trying to find it's way into SPACE - Leaving Bearings and Joints wanting to Freeeeez UP.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,216
@1,392,210 (F)
> > Leftist night time talkshow propaganda causes autism
>
> Can the British ever be happy about anything?
Well Erick has to Kiss the Kings or Queens or Duchess Ass. Pays taxes to keep them in Crown Jewels and Caviar.
> > Leftist night time talkshow propaganda causes autism
>
> Can the British ever be happy about anything?
Well Erick has to Kiss the Kings or Queens or Duchess Ass. Pays taxes to keep them in Crown Jewels and Caviar.
Anonymous E replied with this 4 months ago, 9 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,218
@1,392,215 (A)
Right, of course you're right that there is plenty of room for the stock price to swing in either direction, depending on how Disney reacts to this and further unconstitutional censorship pressure from the U.S. federal government. Google also recently admitted that it had kneeled to unconstitutional US gov censorship pressures, but the news is being spread as a "gotcha, libs" hitpiece, since "Biden's FBI" was involved.
Right, of course you're right that there is plenty of room for the stock price to swing in either direction, depending on how Disney reacts to this and further unconstitutional censorship pressure from the U.S. federal government. Google also recently admitted that it had kneeled to unconstitutional US gov censorship pressures, but the news is being spread as a "gotcha, libs" hitpiece, since "Biden's FBI" was involved.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 9 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,220
@previous (E)
Google literally adheres to government censorship in every country that has government censorship laws. Google maps says different parts of the world belong to different countries depending on what country you’re using it in. They literally censored Tiananmen Square in google search results in China in an attempt to adhere to the Chinese government’s censorship laws in an attempt to not get banned in China, and when somebody leaked that, Google’s excuse was that giving people in China access to Google would do more good than censoring the internet would do harm. Originally their slogan was "don’t be evil" but later they got rid of that slogan because they thought it was problematic.
Google literally adheres to government censorship in every country that has government censorship laws. Google maps says different parts of the world belong to different countries depending on what country you’re using it in. They literally censored Tiananmen Square in google search results in China in an attempt to adhere to the Chinese government’s censorship laws in an attempt to not get banned in China, and when somebody leaked that, Google’s excuse was that giving people in China access to Google would do more good than censoring the internet would do harm. Originally their slogan was "don’t be evil" but later they got rid of that slogan because they thought it was problematic.
Anonymous G double-posted this 4 months ago, 48 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,221
Mark Zuckerberg is worse though, he asked Xi Jinping to name his first born child in an attempt to get Facebook unblocked in China.
Anonymous E replied with this 4 months ago, 10 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,223
@OP
See? Everybody just wants to point fingers and claim that so and so company is worse in order to justify their particular brand of undying loyalty to the God Emperor. It will blow over within a week and stock prices will return to "normal". Wishing you luck with those call options.
@1,392,220 (G)
@previous (G)
See? Everybody just wants to point fingers and claim that so and so company is worse in order to justify their particular brand of undying loyalty to the God Emperor. It will blow over within a week and stock prices will return to "normal". Wishing you luck with those call options.
@1,392,220 (G)
@previous (G)
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Meta replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,224
@1,392,206 (A)
Hey where were you the last ten years when people were getting canceled for everything from making the “OK” gesture to doubting the efficacy of COVID protocols? You were pretty quiet whenever it was someone on the right!!
Hey where were you the last ten years when people were getting canceled for everything from making the “OK” gesture to doubting the efficacy of COVID protocols? You were pretty quiet whenever it was someone on the right!!
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,225
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 10 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,226
@1,392,224 (Meta)
> Hey where were you the last ten years when people were getting canceled for everything from making the “OK” gesture to doubting the efficacy of COVID protocols? You were pretty quiet whenever it was someone on the right!!
On Covid your memory comes up short on how I delt with it- I treated the Vaccine mandates much like I would have with Polio or Measles - Chicken Pox - In fact I have had Shingles TWICE - Horrid - NOW Vaxed to the Max on that.
Trump gets credit for pushing the MRA VAX Production - Of course recently his Alzheimer's Kicked in recently when he agreed with Kennedy to STOP Pushing the MRA VAX and HE SAID We were working on SOMETHING BETTER -
Meta odd how I cannot FIND Anything on any program the US is backing that is BETTER - Can You? Was that one more Lie or? AND people wearing simple USELESS Masks that might actually HELP a Virus accumulate so when it is removed the Fingers end up with a concentration of the Virus.
> Hey where were you the last ten years when people were getting canceled for everything from making the “OK” gesture to doubting the efficacy of COVID protocols? You were pretty quiet whenever it was someone on the right!!
On Covid your memory comes up short on how I delt with it- I treated the Vaccine mandates much like I would have with Polio or Measles - Chicken Pox - In fact I have had Shingles TWICE - Horrid - NOW Vaxed to the Max on that.
Trump gets credit for pushing the MRA VAX Production - Of course recently his Alzheimer's Kicked in recently when he agreed with Kennedy to STOP Pushing the MRA VAX and HE SAID We were working on SOMETHING BETTER -
Meta odd how I cannot FIND Anything on any program the US is backing that is BETTER - Can You? Was that one more Lie or? AND people wearing simple USELESS Masks that might actually HELP a Virus accumulate so when it is removed the Fingers end up with a concentration of the Virus.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,227
@1,392,220 (G)
There is NO question that when dealing with the WORLD and its politics one has to make compromises. Google could take the position of NO Censorship and Loooose quickly - Product would be useless in many places.
Forced to make a Compromise - Qualcomm inc helped Google start UP with $$$$ and I got some free early Google stock - Founders version that has far far far less Tax issues. Not all that much but WOW did it rocket in value and I still have not touched on share of that Gold mine.
So, yes I vote for Compromise in business judgments. Disney compromised in favor of Trumps Ego and it cost Disney $$$ and by Law the CEO and Board of Directors are obligated to vote in favor of the Company and Stock Holders wallet.
Disney may NOT get the NFL deal as a result -
There is NO question that when dealing with the WORLD and its politics one has to make compromises. Google could take the position of NO Censorship and Loooose quickly - Product would be useless in many places.
Forced to make a Compromise - Qualcomm inc helped Google start UP with $$$$ and I got some free early Google stock - Founders version that has far far far less Tax issues. Not all that much but WOW did it rocket in value and I still have not touched on share of that Gold mine.
So, yes I vote for Compromise in business judgments. Disney compromised in favor of Trumps Ego and it cost Disney $$$ and by Law the CEO and Board of Directors are obligated to vote in favor of the Company and Stock Holders wallet.
Disney may NOT get the NFL deal as a result -
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 41 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,234
@1,392,206 (A)
You have the right to express yourself with a wall of text, and I have the right to scroll past it.
No one is entitled to broadcast lies over the public airwaves. That's why there's a licence in the first place. If you want your propaganda propogated find a method using willing private distributors.
You have the right to express yourself with a wall of text, and I have the right to scroll past it.
No one is entitled to broadcast lies over the public airwaves. That's why there's a licence in the first place. If you want your propaganda propogated find a method using willing private distributors.
+Syntax !mxcVR2w7Wg (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,248
@previous (I)
> You have the right to express yourself with a wall of text, and I have the right to scroll past it.
>
> No one is entitled >to broadcast lies over the public airwaves. That's why there's a licence in the first place. If you want your propaganda propogated find a method using willing private distributors.
All Kimmel said was that the Shooter was MAGA - Jury is still out on that because he clearly was Right Wing with the downside of being into A Man faking a Vagina with his Anus with is not popular with Republicans in theory only LOL
https://giphy.com/gifs/news-drag-queen-santos-george-UaTqDIEB1K4gRz7ygw
> No one is entitled to broadcast lies over the public airwaves.
Then TRUMP not Kimmel should be locked up because Trump's record of televised LIES is Legendary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
Most recent Trump said down on MRA Covid Vaccines and we are working on something BETTER - Show me the program Kennedy has for BETTER LoLoLol
PS If you review the US Constitution and 1st Amendment EVEN HATE SPEECH is totally OK as confirmed by the US Supreme Court
https://minichan.net/topic/129335#reply_1392206
Anonymous I you clearly are a FASCIST and please put away your copy of Mein Kampf because as your bible it fails YOU.
> You have the right to express yourself with a wall of text, and I have the right to scroll past it.
>
> No one is entitled >to broadcast lies over the public airwaves. That's why there's a licence in the first place. If you want your propaganda propogated find a method using willing private distributors.
All Kimmel said was that the Shooter was MAGA - Jury is still out on that because he clearly was Right Wing with the downside of being into A Man faking a Vagina with his Anus with is not popular with Republicans in theory only LOL
https://giphy.com/gifs/news-drag-queen-santos-george-UaTqDIEB1K4gRz7ygw
> No one is entitled to broadcast lies over the public airwaves.
Then TRUMP not Kimmel should be locked up because Trump's record of televised LIES is Legendary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
Most recent Trump said down on MRA Covid Vaccines and we are working on something BETTER - Show me the program Kennedy has for BETTER LoLoLol
PS If you review the US Constitution and 1st Amendment EVEN HATE SPEECH is totally OK as confirmed by the US Supreme Court
https://minichan.net/topic/129335#reply_1392206
Anonymous I you clearly are a FASCIST and please put away your copy of Mein Kampf because as your bible it fails YOU.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Meta replied with this 4 months ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,275
@1,392,225 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Do you think social canceling is the same thing as whats happened here?
It's difficult to give a clean yes/no answer on this since it's a somewhat different circumstance. Broadly, yes, it's the same kind of thing.
For one thing, the cancellation was of a much shorter duration - Kimmel was off the air for about five days which is a hell of a lot shorter than, say, Roseanne Barr's 2018 cancellation from ABC for an Ambien tweet (one tweet!) where she never came back to the show (and also didn't get any work for about five years).
The dynamics are also a bit different with Sinclair and Nexstar who own 1/4 of all local ABC televisions dropping the program (their boycott will apparently continue). This instantly cuts Kimmel's audience 25%, which probably has a negative effect on the program's finances (because now if you buy ads on Kimmel, they're reaching 25% less people, which of course reduces the price). I don't think local affiliate stations have played a role in cancellations before. I am not an expert in this area though.
I think it's similar but much weaker and much more specific. Just don't say anything that could be construed negatively about Charlie Kirk on TV. That's ALL they have to do!!!! If Kimmel just sticks to his standard "orange man bad" routine he will be fine.
> Do you think social canceling is the same thing as whats happened here?
It's difficult to give a clean yes/no answer on this since it's a somewhat different circumstance. Broadly, yes, it's the same kind of thing.
For one thing, the cancellation was of a much shorter duration - Kimmel was off the air for about five days which is a hell of a lot shorter than, say, Roseanne Barr's 2018 cancellation from ABC for an Ambien tweet (one tweet!) where she never came back to the show (and also didn't get any work for about five years).
The dynamics are also a bit different with Sinclair and Nexstar who own 1/4 of all local ABC televisions dropping the program (their boycott will apparently continue). This instantly cuts Kimmel's audience 25%, which probably has a negative effect on the program's finances (because now if you buy ads on Kimmel, they're reaching 25% less people, which of course reduces the price). I don't think local affiliate stations have played a role in cancellations before. I am not an expert in this area though.
I think it's similar but much weaker and much more specific. Just don't say anything that could be construed negatively about Charlie Kirk on TV. That's ALL they have to do!!!! If Kimmel just sticks to his standard "orange man bad" routine he will be fine.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,276
@1,392,248 (+Syntax !mxcVR2w7Wg)
But hurting conservatives feelings is worse than saying the n word!
But hurting conservatives feelings is worse than saying the n word!
Anonymous E replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,287
@1,392,234 (I)
> You have the right to express yourself with a wall of text, and I have the right to scroll past it.
>
> No one is entitled to broadcast lies over the public airwaves. That's why there's a licence in the first place. If you want your propaganda propogated find a method using willing private distributors.
I'm using public airwaves right now to transmit lies, and it's totally legal. I can even defame you by calling you a cowardly nigger, and it's still legal! The occupants of the FBI surveillance van parked outside are about to get a bit laugh when I press the Post button. Another lie, but it's legal and it's really been transmitted across "public airwaves".
> You have the right to express yourself with a wall of text, and I have the right to scroll past it.
>
> No one is entitled to broadcast lies over the public airwaves. That's why there's a licence in the first place. If you want your propaganda propogated find a method using willing private distributors.
I'm using public airwaves right now to transmit lies, and it's totally legal. I can even defame you by calling you a cowardly nigger, and it's still legal! The occupants of the FBI surveillance van parked outside are about to get a bit laugh when I press the Post button. Another lie, but it's legal and it's really been transmitted across "public airwaves".
Anonymous E double-posted this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,290
Jews didst do 9/11
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,292
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 3 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,331
I'm glad to see you back Syntax <3
+Syntax !mxcVR2w7Wg (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 5 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,376
+Syntax !mxcVR2w7Wg (OP) double-posted this 4 months ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,392,380
So, I watched Kimmel LIVE Which I never ever do re commercials - Recorded it and decide to watch it LIVE
GF who lives in New York most of the time is here until Sunday and she decided to view it with commercials to see if the sponsors were om still support. Clearly a few have dropped out based on so many ABC injected er Stuff
A super FCC Commissioner played by Robert De Niro looked like Robert was totally free to have NO Script and Wing it. Most excellent . Could have used more Sarah McLaughlin to end the show.
I figure with Kimmel who was somewhat forced by ABC to re up his contract a while back and with a drop of 25% of shows carried by Next whatever and Sinclair - the cost of the show and Live! employs roughly 200 to 250 individuals.
I suspect Stephen Colbert AND Kimmel will soon find another Platform - Perhaps HBO which is loaded with $$$$$ and since CABLE is NOT under FCC anything - They will have freedom from Corporate messing with and with NO need of Sponsors will have what John Oliver and Bill Maher have with NO Censorship at all - One can say Mother Fuck or Cook Trumps Microdick with NO Problem/
GF who lives in New York most of the time is here until Sunday and she decided to view it with commercials to see if the sponsors were om still support. Clearly a few have dropped out based on so many ABC injected er Stuff
A super FCC Commissioner played by Robert De Niro looked like Robert was totally free to have NO Script and Wing it. Most excellent . Could have used more Sarah McLaughlin to end the show.
I figure with Kimmel who was somewhat forced by ABC to re up his contract a while back and with a drop of 25% of shows carried by Next whatever and Sinclair - the cost of the show and Live! employs roughly 200 to 250 individuals.
I suspect Stephen Colbert AND Kimmel will soon find another Platform - Perhaps HBO which is loaded with $$$$$ and since CABLE is NOT under FCC anything - They will have freedom from Corporate messing with and with NO need of Sponsors will have what John Oliver and Bill Maher have with NO Censorship at all - One can say Mother Fuck or Cook Trumps Microdick with NO Problem/