Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Kirk will be a name you tell your grandchildren about. Kimmel will be a distant memory.

lol no. I’m a republican that never heard of Charlie Kirk until he was killed. I think it’s because I’m a moderate and I try to ignore the extremes.

I do think people will know who Charlie Kirk is in several generations but not because he was a wonderful person. He will be remembered for his assassination and for embodying the divisiveness of this political moment. He'll be remembered the way David Duke will be remembered.

I just hope he isn’t remembered the way Archduke Ferdinand is remembered.

My condolences to the 8 people that still watched him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thoughts are while mocking someone’s death or saying they deserve it is never OK:

1) OMG I am constantly stunned by just how fragile MAGA is.

2) As a free speech absolutist, I doubt Charlie Kirk would want this.

3) I am really sick of hearing about Charlie Kirk. It isn’t like he was a good person.

Shut up

lol no. Charlie Kirk was nothing more than a provocateur who said heinous things for attention. He didn’t deserve to be killed for it but it’s not like he contributed anything worthwhile to society and history will not remember him fondly. I am beyond sick of being told he was a good person.

You’re hilarious! You will never stop hearing his name.

He will go the way of Rush Limbaugh.

Turning Point USA has now RECEIVED over 54,000 INQUIRIES to START new chapters.

Not going anywhere sweetheart.

Talk about an organization that hates America and everything it stands for.

But it doesn’t, it really doesn’t. You have to be listening to leftist propaganda to believe that.

Truly.
My family was watching An American President the other day, which was a total lib movie in the 90s that contained a rousing speech in support of the first amendment coupled with a call for stricter gun laws.
The latter is still present in today’s left, but it was startling how the first amendment speech that Aaron Sorkin wrote sounds like it came right out of Turning Point USA Today.
Lefties have zero ability or desire to let anyone else have a voice.

I will defend Kimmel’s absolute right to be a jackass, but I’m not gonna get all broken up about a millionaire’s parent company giving him the ax for using their airwaves to insult half their consumer base.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate Trump and do not like Kirks message at all but good riddance to Kimmel. Less of all this smug UMC diet coke leftism please.

Kirk’s message is that we are all sinners in need of a Savior. You don’t need to agree. You just need to love this country as much as liberals used to—and make room for everyone to express whatever opinion they want and deal with their own social consequences. Freedom of speech means your government cannot jail you or punish you. Doesn’t mean you are guaranteed employment if your choose to express views that costs your employer sponsors or—in Kimmels case—expresses disdain for roughly half of the U.S. population when your show is supposed to attract viewers so that your sponsors make money.
Kimmel thought he was too big to worry about any of that.
He was wrong.

Is this why Kirk devoted so much energy to upping the consequences for college professors that he disagreed with? I'm sorry, but the idea that Kirk is a free speech martyr is offensive to the concept of freedom of expression.

Granted I didn’t know who this Charlie Kirk person was a week ago, but I’ve now had a lot of exposure to him. He wasn’t going after professors just because they were liberal. He wasn’t going after professors who were unfairly biased against conservative students, and also professors who refused to engage with anyone who didn’t share their liberal beliefs.

Or at least that’s my understanding. If you have a clip or writing from him suggesting he wanted “consequences” against professors simply for being liberal (which would be pretty much all professors), please share!

Um, you have to be hopelessly naive not to think that the purpose of a curated "watchlist" is not to somehow up the ante of consequences for people you don't like.

And regardless, there is plenty of evidence that it did result in harassment of professors, but TPUSA did nothing to take it down: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/sep/17/turning-point-usa-professor-watchlist

Anonymous wrote:Kimmel was told not to do it, and he did it. He's not some free press warrior. He's the women on trampolines guy that started to take himself too seriously.

I’m not a regular Kimmel watcher but he was a g-d hero in the first Trump admin with speaking out daily about their attempts to gut the ACA and also featuring on his show daily a federal worker during the long fed shitdown — people like federal fight fighters or NPS rangers. Broadcasting that was a true public service.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate Trump and do not like Kirks message at all but good riddance to Kimmel. Less of all this smug UMC diet coke leftism please.

Kirk’s message is that we are all sinners in need of a Savior. You don’t need to agree. You just need to love this country as much as liberals used to—and make room for everyone to express whatever opinion they want and deal with their own social consequences. Freedom of speech means your government cannot jail you or punish you. Doesn’t mean you are guaranteed employment if your choose to express views that costs your employer sponsors or—in Kimmels case—expresses disdain for roughly half of the U.S. population when your show is supposed to attract viewers so that your sponsors make money.
Kimmel thought he was too big to worry about any of that.
He was wrong.

Is this why Kirk devoted so much energy to upping the consequences for college professors that he disagreed with? I'm sorry, but the idea that Kirk is a free speech martyr is offensive to the concept of freedom of expression.

Granted I didn’t know who this Charlie Kirk person was a week ago, but I’ve now had a lot of exposure to him. He wasn’t going after professors just because they were liberal. He wasn’t going after professors who were unfairly biased against conservative students, and also professors who refused to engage with anyone who didn’t share their liberal beliefs.

Or at least that’s my understanding. If you have a clip or writing from him suggesting he wanted “consequences” against professors simply for being liberal (which would be pretty much all professors), please share!

If you look at the website (https://www.professorwatchlist.org) you can see why professors are listed and a lot of them are simply for holding views.

Anonymous wrote:his show sucked and I found him unfunny. Maybe no one was watching the show and they were looking for a reason to get rid of him.

He had already basically said he was bored with the show and was gojng to be wrapping up so it would have been really easy to ease him out if they wanted. But this is about chilling speech for all cultural figures.

Anonymous wrote:his show sucked and I found him unfunny. Maybe no one was watching the show and they were looking for a reason to get rid of him.

Says the guy who never watched. I never heard of Charlie Kirk until he was killed so maybe no one was watching him. 🙄

Anonymous wrote:Lefties are mad about Jimmy Kimmel being silenced from his show, but OK with Charlie being silenced for life. That’s irony.

Congratulations, you win the 6th grade reading level MAGA oversimplification of the day. No decent person is okay with Kirk's killing even if they thought he was an awful person, and yes, decent people despise political witch hunts even if they don't like Kimmel. Basing your ethics on partisan politics just shows you don't have any.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts state media coming in fast.

MAGA the stupids want to live in Russia or North Korea, they have no idea what they have done the idiots.

Right now they have the right to watch or not watch anything.

By 2028 Trump will be telling them how to breathe the morons

🙄
Funny you didn’t have an issue when the Democrats were dictating to Twitter and Facebook execs what content they needed to remove due to “misinformation”—but when a tv host says something abhorrent and mocks the grief of people with whom he disagrees politically and angers the show’s stakeholders who demand that his employers take a stand—that’s racist?? Oooookay.

Like Hillary is a Lizard person holding pedo meetings at comet ping pong? You know, the ones she invited people to via codes in a risotto recipe?

Are you okay?

Anonymous wrote:This, as yet another example of firing behavior this week, should scare the $#!++ out of everyone. It should really affect everyone that comedians, news outlets, pundits, teachers, nurses, corporate workers are losing their jobs. It should scare you to death that people are being kidnapped in courthouses, at work, and on the street. It should scare you that research is being pulled and replaced, that history of slavery is being tossed out.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED to fully understand what is happening here?

It’s all in how you frame it.
Our Worldviews are completely different.
When a person publicly takes delight in another person’s murder just because they don’t like his message or don’t agree with his politics, employers don’t really appreciate being associated with them, because that person seems unstable and employers don’t want to lose business or alienate consumers and will worry that customers/consumers will think that your views represent the company’s stance. Most companies have a morality clause or some kind of PR clause where you agree not to engage in conduct that embarrassed the company. It’s at-will employment.

No one is being jailed here for their speech. (Unless democrats succeed in continuing to push the idea of “hate speech” being a special type of speech that isn’t protected under the first amendment—which is total BS-ALL speech should be protected and congress should not be allowed to make any laws to abridge your speech!)

The “kidnapping” thing is just fear-mongering. You know if you are here illegally or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Money talks. Advertisers don't want any part of Fallon's opinions

It’s not Fallon you dumdum.

Fallon will fall in line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What part of Kimmel's statement is factually incorrect. Is it not true that MAGA is saying the killer is not MAGA?

On the off chance that you are truly asking for clarity, this was not what was said or HOW it was said at all. It’s the disdain and callousness of his framing with the setup of “new lows” in “desperately trying to characterize” the killer as non-MAGA and the heavy implication that actual grieving was performative.
I fully believe this is his true opinion and he is free to express it.
I also find it unconscionably insensitive, gross, and insulting to those of us who are mourning. And I don’t blame his employer not wanting to be associated with appalling sentiments like that.
A man you don’t like was murdered. Murdered.
Something is wrong with you if you can’t understand why “MAGA” would be grieved by this. But more importantly, you display a lack of humanity when you mock it.

Some day you may realize how grossly manipulated you have been by Trump et al. Watch his reaction to a question as to how he is doing after the shooting. If you want to see callous behavior regarding Kirk, watch Trump immediately jump into talking about his ballroom with no emotion.

And your failure to see what Kimmel was actually saying is clouded by your bias. It truly went over your head.

Anonymous wrote:Lefties are mad about Jimmy Kimmel being silenced from his show, but OK with Charlie being silenced for life. That’s irony.

Charlie believed in freedom of speech, not cancel culture.

Lefties are mad about Jimmy Kimmel being silenced from his show, but OK with Charlie being silenced for life. That’s irony.