Jimmie Kimmel Show gone !

#685
#685
McDad said:
Trump admin has nothing to do with Kimmel. The connection is conjecture at this point.
Click to expand...
iu
 
#686
#686
BowlBrother85 said:
In the same Truth Social post where Trump gloats over the cancellation of "Jimmy Kimmel Live!," Trump also calls on NBC to fire Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers. LOL.

When does this stop? When Trump gets nothing but people he approves of on television? This is insane. It's very authoritarian.
Click to expand...
It’s crazy how he flip flops between solid policy and dumb stuff like this. It’s one thing to think stuff like this or even say it out loud. But typing it into a permanent record is bizarre.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#687
#687
GVF said:
True. Everyone else had already shifted by the time he walked out. And the replacements were downward spirals posessing no broad appeal or natural humor. Leno was good. Letterman once was then got brainwashed. Carson was the God of late night. Many thought they were. But there can only be one.
Click to expand...
Long story as to why, but my TV right now consists of only Pluto and Tubi. So I have been watching Carson a LOT. His interviews were fantastic and his humor was more self deprecating than offensive. You were spot on about him.

He had George Foreman on the other day and it was right after he had won the championship for the first time. It was a really good interview.
 
#688
#688
CobbVol said:
So you can halfway be a racist?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure " halfway" is a proper description of someone who might have developed conscious racist beliefs because of how they may have been raised by their parents, but then changed their beliefs as they grew older and more educated. That same person might though, have some subconscious racist tendencies that kick in later due to the earlier nurturing and act accordingly as a result. That's my view anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#689
#689
McDad said:
Kimmel's statement and BB85's analysis makes more sense to read it than hear it for me.
Click to expand...
"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]]
 
#690
#690
SpaceCoastVol said:
It is amazing to me how much Hollywood needs to publicly pat itself on the back.
Click to expand...
you need to read anything by the government. the first 50 pages are self congratulatory written masturbation.

or see them at a ground breaking. they act like they personally funded it, wrote the laws so it could happen, designed it, and got it thru permitting. willing to bet most of them had never even heard about the project an hour before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#691
#691
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...
It is easy to read it that way. As BB stated, it is poorly worded.

Let me see if I can construct an example to illustrate.
 
#692
#692
BernardKingGOAT said:
I'm not sure " halfway" is a proper description of someone who might have developed conscious racist beliefs because of how they may have been raised by their parents, but then changed their beliefs as they grew older and more educated. That same person might though, have some subconscious racist tendencies that kick in later due to the earlier nurturing and act accordingly as a result. That's my view anyway.
Click to expand...
I actually think there are two distinct divisions on the topic one may encounter within themselves. Prejudice and Racist.

Prejudice would be the bucket where you are leery of someone that you are not familiar with (life experieces ?) and have natural feeling and questions about. I consider this a notion that diminishes as you may hands on get to know a particular individual, but still applicable to what/who you don't know, even if same "category."

Racism is hatred or disdain of another based soley on race, creed, color, orientation, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, BernardKingGOAT and McDad
#693
#693
McDad said:
It is easy to read it that way. As BB stated, it is poorly worded.

Let me see if I can construct an example to illustrate.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but poorly worded is what he will get skewered for...lacking an apology and explanation and retraction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#695
#695
BernardKingGOAT said:
I'm not sure " halfway" is a proper description of someone who might have developed conscious racist beliefs because of how they may have been raised by their parents, but then changed their beliefs as they grew older and more educated. That same person might though, have some subconscious racist tendencies that kick in later due to the earlier nurturing and act accordingly as a result. That's my view anyway.
Click to expand...
But in regards to our subject Charlie Kirk, you posted this out of the blue to someone saying Kirk was not a "hate mongering racist".

"Yeah we know you don't have the brain processing power"......
Click to expand...

It looks like you were trying to make a point. So again, what was the point?
 
#696
#696
GAVol said:
It’s crazy how he flip flops between solid policy and dumb stuff like this. It’s one thing to think stuff like this or even say it out loud. But typing it into a permanent record is bizarre.
Click to expand...
Yeah one minute you think he's maturing into the man we wanted him to be, then the 5th grader at hte playground starts yelling I told you so, over and again.

Don't regret any of my votes, but so wished he'd be able to put away his childish ways.
 
#697
#697
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...
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?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top