Jimmie Kimmel Show gone !

#702
#702
McDad said:
Not the best example but see what this does for you, if anything.

We're neighbors. And you're one of many neighbors who has cattle. I call you and say your cow in destroying my garden. It isn't. But I think it is. So you go through all the reasons why it is someone else's. My comment to you is, well i think it's funny that it is could be everybody's but yours.
What I am saying with that comment is I find it suspicious that you're giving me all the reasons it is someone else's rather than walking me through why it isn't yours. I am not saying the cow is yours, I am saying the way you're denying it yours is suspicious.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I would look at the body of work actually. Which may adress legalality of what he said in no discernable way at all. Do you have an established pattern of always crying that it's my cows, peddling untruths about me and my cows? Meaning Kimmel has a track record of railing against MAGA without regard for fact. This instance may just happen to be an instance where the comment is borderline non-fact peddling on a topic any reasonable person should know not to get entagled in right now. Patterns typically can show intent??
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#706
#706
swampfoxfan said:
Those words came from Charlie's mouth.

You magas can spin it any way you want, it doesn't change the fact Charlie Kirk was a hate mongering racist.
Click to expand...

Swampy,

You’re a man who has confessed to be a Christian (Christ Like) if you believe Charlie Kirk to be a hate mongering racist then wouldn’t you have to apply that same principle to yourself?

You seem to have hate for anyone that doesn’t agree with you or the left. That’s hate mongering.

You have made racist comments (who is going to pick the vegetables). That’s basically saying that an Hispanics only worth or knowledge is picking vegetables. That’s racist.

You spout a lot of things that Jesus “said” but never post the verse. I believe that one time you stated or implied that Jesus commanded the government to feed the hungry and to clothe the poor (he commanded the church).

In Matthew 5:44 Jesus said “ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#707
#707
GVF said:
I would look at the body of work actually. Which may adress legalality of he said in no discernable way at all. Do you have an established pattern of always crying that it's my cows, peddling untruths about me and my cows? Meaning Kimmel has a track record of railing against MAGA without regard for fact. This instance may just happen to be an instance where the comment is borderline non-fact peddling on a topic any reasonable person should know not to get entagled in right now. Patterns typically can show intent??
Click to expand...
You're certainly at your discretion to bring in previous conduct into the interpretation. But, at the end, it is interpretation. That doesn't mean that I called the cow yours is a matter of fact.

Our brains are very adept and providing interpretation when we lack explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#713
#713
BowlBrother85 said:
According to Wikipedia, "Jimmy Kimmell Live!" premiered on ABC after Super Bowl XXXVII between the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Oakland Raiders on January 26, 2003. The Bucs won big.

22 years on one of the 3 major networks is a lengthy run for a late night talk show. I don't know where it stood in the Nielsen ratings, and I don't care enough to look it up, but his viewership must have been pretty good for the show to stay on the air as long as it has.
Click to expand...
Wow, was he really on for 22 years? Damn I’m old.
 
#714
#714
Jxn Vol said:
They should move to where the food is.
Click to expand...
c'mon man. You can argue whether we should sponsor food programs with taxpayer money, but making the blanket statement that they should all just "move somewhere else" is not entirely feasible for a lot of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#715
#715
McDad said:
You're certainly at your discretion to bring in previous conduct into the interpretation. But, at the end, it is interpretation. That doesn't mean that I called the cow yours is a matter of fact.

Our brains are very adept and providing interpretation when we lack explanation.
Click to expand...
No disagreement, but if those were his words verbatim, he's very, very borderline on that one as peddling non-fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#717
#717
Glocker_Alum_2005 said:
This what he said, verbatim: "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” He did not explicitly say Robinson was MAGA. Folks, we are through the looking glass now.
Click to expand...
He crossed over long ago with comments about Trump saying Neo Nazis are fine people and other such lies. All these media outlets twist crap to fit their narrative. Trust none of them.
 
#718
#718
GVF said:
No disagreement, but if those were his words verbatim, he's very, very borderline on that one as peddling non-fact.
Click to expand...
approximating him and the non fact is a judgement call. I can understand how you get there. But again, he didn't call the shooter maga or claim he was part of maga tribe.

Another consideration that may need further exploration is this:
are comedians expected to peddle in facts? Is that their standard?
 
#719
#719
McDad said:
approximating him and the non fact is a judgement call. I can understand how you get there. But again, he didn't call the shooter maga or claim he was part of maga tribe.

Another consideration that may need further exploration is this:
are comedians expected to peddle in facts? Is that their standard?
Click to expand...
Case by case? Is Kimmel really a comedian? Funny would be a pre-requisite?

lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, volfan102455 and McDad
#722
#722

Disney Bosses Want Jimmy Kimmel To ‘de-escalate’ Before Putting Show Back On Air: Reports​


Disney bosses are scrambling to convince Jimmy Kimmel to tone down his rhetoric before putting his show back on the air as the company scrambles to manage fallout from his fiery monologue about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

The House of Mouse is said to be keen on resuming the airing of Kimmel’s one-hour talk show, and top bosses were scheduled to meet late Thursday with the longtime host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” in a bid to de-escalate the situation, which has led to death threats and doxxing of staffers, according to reports.

The earliest the show could return is this Monday, though it is unclear if Disney can come to a resolution with Kimmel before then, it was reported by Bloomberg News.

nypost.com

Disney bosses want Jimmy Kimmel to ‘de-escalate’ before putting show back on air: reports

Disney bosses are scrambling to convince Jimmy Kimmel to tone down his rhetoric before putting his show back on the air as the company scrambles to manage fallout from his fiery monologue about the…
nypost.com nypost.com
 
#723
#723
GVF said:
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,”



Is this an accurate print of what Kimmel said verbatum? If so, I don't follow. Seems to me Kimmel implied the kid was MAGA by MAGA's attempts to disassociate from him. Which was not a political sping on MAGA but a defense, or statement, of fact by MAGA. GRanted he didn't SAY kid was MAGA, but the implication exists pretty noticeable and blatant, however that would be legally viewed. Open to more explanation. It's thin, and he did not directly tie the kid in verbatum, but he's also walking a thin line on implied intent??

He seems to imply the kid was MAGA, or identified MAGA as his target [[hence 'hitting new lows with MAGA gang']]

...as anything other than one of them [[meaning Kimmel implied the kid was associated with MAGA]]
Click to expand...

What was happening in the media up until this point:

- Those news outlets that report facts as they were being presented by the local authorities, FBI etc. reported "the facts" and "the facts" made it clear around the political leanings of the kid.

- The news outlets with an agenda were ignoring those facts and not reporting them completely. They were pushing the narrative that the kid was Maga and continued to do so even after it was clear that was not the case. I saw it on my timelines in social media from acquaintances even before they had arrested him or knew who he was.

By the time his show aired, he should have known the facts and choose to ignore them and continue to mislead the public.

I feel there is a large part of the population in this country who are tired of being misled and dealing with the division that causes. They want news that is factual and not filtered based on a reporter's political opinion. And as such they are not only tuning them out but also asking that they actually do their job.

I'm not saying folks on both sides were hoping this was one way or the other - just that you had new outlets that refused to report the facts as presented by the authorities.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top