Jimmie Kimmel Show gone !

[BowlBrother85]

He seems to have clarified himself, as I edited above.

If his plan was an investigation, you'll agree that it is appropriate scope as you defined?

If not, what EXACTLY was his threat/plan? And, if you don't know, how can you know whether it would have been appropriate under the scope you defined above?

Carr was trying to force ABC to take punitive action against Kimmel. He gave ABC an ultimatum to either do so, or he would take action against them. That's all we need to know. That by itself is a coercive threat. The federal government has no business trying to force a company to discipline an employee.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Carr was trying to force ABC to take punitive action against Kimmel. He gave ABC an ultimatum to either do so, or he would take action against them. That's all we need to know. That by itself is a coercive threat. The federal government has no business trying to force a company to discipline an employee.

An ultimatum requires an "or else". We'd need to know that to say with any certainty, correct? You claim it's "take action" against ABC. He indicated it may be an investigation into Kimmel.

"Deal with Kimmel, or we'll revoke your license."

Is a little different than:

"We'll investigate Kimmel if you don't do it."




I'm genuinely curious what you know the "or else" to be, considering the indication that he said that an 'investigation' 'may' be the next step if put into the FCC's lap to deal with.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Carr was trying to force ABC to take punitive action against Kimmel. He gave ABC an ultimatum to either do so, or he would take action against them. That's all we need to know. That by itself is a coercive threat. The federal government has no business trying to force a company to discipline an employee.

And you believe that government agencies aren't meant to be coercive?

 

[GVF]

I don't act like anything, another conservative telling me what I think and being wrong.

didn't tell you what you think. Tell you how you act.

 

[GVF]

You apparently know absolutely noting about immagrant wages.

There you go. Telling him how he thinks.

 

[BowlBrother85]

An ultimatum requires an "or else". We'd need to know that to say with any certainty, correct?

That is where Brendan Carr's line, " ..... or there's going to be additional work for the FCC to do," comes into play.

He indicated it may be an investigation into Kimmel.

Carr did not use the word "investigation" on that podcast.

"We'll investigate Kimmel if you don't do it."

That would still be coercing ABC into disciplining Kimmel. That is not the role of the federal government. The decision of whether or not to discipline Kimmel, should only be the role of his employer - Disney/ABC.

 

[swampfoxfan]

View attachment 775527

Says the king of made up lies.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That is where Brendan Carr's line, " ..... or there's going to be additional work for the FCC to do," comes into play.

Carr did not use the word "investigation" on that podcast.

OK, then specifically, what "work" was he referring to? Surely you know, since you know it's out of the scope you say is appropriate for the FCC.

That would still be coercing ABC into disciplining Kimmel. That is not the role of the federal government.

Why is coercion not the role of the federal government. Every time a judge signs a search warrant, they are coercing. Every time the IRS audits someone, it's coercion. It's kind of their "thing". You rejoiced when the FBI raided Trump, but denounce the FCC's oversight of the airwaves?

Could the actual source of your disdain be political?

The decision of whether or not to discipline Kimmel, should only be the role of his employer - ABC.

It was only the role of the employer. Did Carr scream into the microphone, "Kimmel, you're fired!"?

 

[swampfoxfan]

There you go. Telling him how he thinks.

No,telling him he knows nothing about immagrant wages. No immagrant working on farms makes $2/hr as he said. They are not slave labor, they are willing labor.

 

[BowlBrother85]

OK, then specifically, what "work" was he referring to? Surely you know, since you know it's out of the scope you say is appropriate for the FCC.

It doesn't matter. Carr made a coercive threat to ABC to discipline Kimmel or else ..... it doesn't matter that the "or else" was never specified. It is not the role of the federal government to demand that a company discipline an employee.

Why is coercion not the role of the federal government.

Do I really have to tell you why the federal government has no jurisdiction over the hiring and firing practices of the private sector? I hope not. You don't seem like an idiot.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Could the actual source of your disdain be political?

More likely? Your obstinance demonstrated here is the result of your unconditional defense of the Trump Administration.

 

[swampfoxfan]

It doesn't matter. Carr made a coercive threat to ABC to discipline Kimmel or else ..... it doesn't matter that the "or else" was never specified. It is not the role of the federal government to demand that a company discipline an employee.


Do I really have to tell you why the federal government has no jurisdiction over the hiring and firing practices of the private sector? I hope not. You don't seem like an idiot.

I disagree BB ,orange often seems like an idiot.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It doesn't matter. Carr made a coercive threat to ABC to discipline Kimmel or else ..... it doesn't matter that the "or else" was never specified. It is not the role of the federal government to demand that a company discipline an employee.

That's ridiculous. The "or else" is extremely important. Would the "or else" be within the scope of appropriate FCC activities? Do you have any idea what the "or else" was?

Do I really have to tell you why the federal government has no jurisdiction over the hiring and firing practices of the private sector? I hope not. You don't seem like an idiot.

Carr didn't fire anyone.

If Kimmel chronically broke FCC regulations, the FCC has a responsibility to investigate. If he chronically broke FCC regulations, and the network refused to do anything about it, it becomes a network problem for the FCC to deal with. If Kimmel is no longer an employee of the network for having chronically broken FCC regulations, because the network self-resolved the issue, then there is no need for the FCC to investigate and seek remedy if appropriate, depending on the outcome of the investigation.

It doesn't seem like this should be that complicated.

 

[Orange_Crush]

More likely? Your obstinance demonstrated here is the result of your unconditional defense of the Trump Administration.

If that makes you feel better, I guess.

I disagree BB ,orange often seems like an idiot.

I'm devastated, I tell ya. Just heart broken.

 

[BowlBrother85]

That's ridiculous. The "or else" is extremely important. Would the "or else" be within the scope of appropriate FCC activities? Do you have any idea what the "or else" was?

No, it's not ridiculous at all, if the FCC is demanding punishment of Kimmel as a condition of whether or not they resort to the "or else." That is a coercive threat, that the FCC has no right to make.

Carr didn't fire anyone.

Right, but Carr threatened ABC with action if they didn't punish Kimmel. That was wrong.

If Kimmel chronically broke FCC regulations, the FCC has a responsibility to investigate. If he chronically broke FCC regulations, and the network refused to do anything about it, it becomes a network problem for the FCC to deal with. If Kimmel is no longer an employee of the network for having chronically broken FCC regulations, because the network self-resolved the issue, then there is no need for the FCC to investigate and seek remedy, depending on the outcome of the investigation.

It doesn't seem like this should be that complicated.

It's not complicated at all. Once again, Carr did not use the word "investigation" on that podcast. I don't know why you are insisting on saying that. It's weird. LOL.

Carr made a coercive threat against ABC to discipline Kimmel, or else he would do something to them. He gave them an ultimatum. The FCC has no authority over who ABC hires and fires or how they choose to discipline their employees. Although they are under federal regulation, they are still in the private sector.

You are just being obstinate now, and quite frankly, I was wrong about you not being an idiot. Talk to someone else. I'm done here.

 

[hog88]

I'm just encouraged that some of our biggest strong central government proponents are seeing the light.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I'm just encouraged that some of our biggest strong central government proponents are seeing the light.

Interesting.

 

[hog88]

Interesting.

On the flip side, I'm not surprised in seeing some of our self professed "conservatives" defending Carr's comments.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

On the flip side, I'm not surprised in seeing some of our self professed "conservatives" defending Carr's comments.

There really doesn't seem to be as many conservatives as one would think here.

They're about as conservative as LG is independent.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, it's not ridiculous at all, if the FCC is demanding punishment of Kimmel as a condition of whether or not they resort to the "or else." That is a coercive threat, that the FCC has no right to make.

Can you please support thiws assertion that the Federal gov't is not meant to be coercive? Your entire argument seems to hinge on this point. Thank you.

Right, but Carr threatened ABC with action if they didn't punish Kimmel. That was wrong.

Why? See above. Your entire argument seems to hinge on this.

It's not complicated at all. Once again, Carr did not use the word "investigation" on that podcast. I don't know why you are insisting on saying that. It's weird. LOL.

OK. Fine. Not important enough to track down. What WAS the "or else", specifically? I'm not sure why you can't answer this.

Carr made a coercive threat against ABC to discipline Kimmel, or else he would do something to them.

See above, please. Your argument seems to hinge on it.

He gave them an ultimatum.

This is kind of tiring. What was the "or else"? You argument hinges on the specifics. An investigation? Scorched earth destruction of the network, no questions asked?

The FCC has no authority over who ABC hires and fires or how they choose to discipline their employees. They are in the private sector.

If you can't say what the next step would be, how can you know whether the FCC was within their authority? That detail seems important.

You are just being obstinate now, and quite frankly, I was wrong about you not being an idiot. Talk to someone else. I'm done here.

I'm an idiot because you are having trouble supporting your argument? That's an odd way to handle this.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Can you please support thiws assertion that the Federal gov't is not meant to be coercive? Your entire argument seems to hinge on this point. Thank you.



Why? See above. Your entire argument seems to hinge on this.



OK. Fine. Not important enough to track down. What WAS the "or else", specifically? I'm not sure why you can't answer this.




See above, please. Your argument seems to hinge on it.



This is kind of tiring. What was the "or else"? You argument hinges on the specifics. An investigation? Scorched earth destruction of the network, no questions asked?



If you can't say what the next step would be, how can you know whether the FCC was within their authority? That detail seems important.





I'm an idiot because you are having trouble supporting your argument? That's an odd way to handle this.

I'm not having trouble with anything. Basically, the federal government doesn't get to tell a private sector company who to hire and fire or who they should discipline.

That is exactly what Brendan Carr did in his "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," rant. He was trying to force ABC into taking some form of disciplinary action against Jimmy Kimmel by way of an ultimatum. When he did that, he infringed upon Jimmy Kimmel's freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment.

There really isn't anything else to say from my perspective. I think you are being obstinate, because of your own political bias.

This shouldn't be a liberal vs conservative issue. When the government oversteps their boundaries like Carr did, we should all take offense to it, regardless of which party is in power.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Jimmy Kimmel Preparing Sensational Return To TV After Being Suspended indefinitely over Charlie Kirk comments​

Jimmy Kimmel is working with ABC's parent company Disney to bring his late-night show back after it was indefinitely suspended due to his monologue about Charlie Kirk, according to insiders.

Three sources with knowledge of the conversations told Variety that compromises are in the works for Jimmy Kimmel Live! to return to television.

Sinclair, the media corporation that owns multiple ABC affiliate stations, previously called on the host to apologize and donate to Kirk's organization, Turning Point USA.

Sources familiar with the conversations told Variety that it's unclear what conditions Kimmel would return under, and whether he has decided to apologize or make the donation that Sinclair demanded.

Jimmy Kimmel plans return after suspension over Charlie Kirk comments

ABC and Disney are in talks to bring back Jimmy Kimmel's show after it was suspended indefinitely amid backlash to the host's comments on the murder of Charlie Kirk.

www.dailymail.co.uk

He can probably compete with the CBS Late overnight news at 3am.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Mayne, Crush is dug in deep.

My brother in Gaia, I'm here whenever you want to press the red button and get off the ride.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

deleted

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm not having trouble with anything. Basically, the federal government doesn't get to tell a private sector company who to hire and fire or who they should discipline.

That is exactly what Brendan Carr did in his "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," rant. He was trying to force ABC into taking some form of disciplinary action against Jimmy Kimmel by way of an ultimatum. When he did that, he infringed upon Jimmy Kimmel's freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment.

There really isn't anything else to say from my perspective. I think you are being obstinate, because of your own political bias.

This shouldn't be a liberal vs conservative issue. When the government oversteps their boundaries like Carr did, we should all take offense to it, regardless of which party is in power.

I've already said that Carr was a dumb*** and should have kept his mouth shut.

I am, however, questioning your conclusions and points of argument. You haven't supported your vague statements with references to HIS vague statements.