I started skimming the thread and decided it was pointless to read the majority of it if the argument was not about the actions and statements of FCC chairman Brenden Carr. Someone want to argue the FCC was acting in the public interest when it claimed that Jimmy Kimmel should be taken off the air, be my guest. The argument about the right to be employed is not the issue. The issue is if the Executive Branch acted in the interest of the President and exerted influence for his gain at the expense of democratic principles and private corporate interests.
Also at issue is whether Kimmel said stupid crap and Sinclair said take a hike, Jimmy.
I mean, Gadianton makes a great point allowing some wiggle room. Sinclair gets to decide when and where to wiggle.
Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way.
— Gadianton
I started skimming the thread and decided it was pointless to read the majority of it if the argument was not about the actions and statements of FCC chairman Brenden Carr. Someone want to argue the FCC was acting in the public interest when it claimed that Jimmy Kimmel should be taken off the air, be my guest. The argument about the right to be employed is not the issue. The issue is if the Executive Branch acted in the interest of the President and exerted influence for his gain at the expense of democratic principles and private corporate interests.
Also at issue is whether Kimmel said stupid crap and Sinclair said take a hike, Jimmy.
I mean, Gadianton makes a great point allowing some wiggle room. Sinclair gets to decide when and where to wiggle.
Do you agree with the definition of authoritarianism or would you care to clarify what it is? Play the ball, remember?
Buy it or not, I ain’t the vendor. And whether you buy it doesn’t change the market.
If the vendor you're talking about is Donald Trump or any of his obsequiously loyal and corrupt appointees, there is a high likelihood they were lying. I don't trust them any further than I can cyber toss the Washington Monument!
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Also at issue is whether Kimmel said stupid crap and Sinclair said take a hike, Jimmy.
I mean, Gadianton makes a great point allowing some wiggle room. Sinclair gets to decide when and where to wiggle.
Do you agree with the definition of authoritarianism or would you care to clarify what it is? Play the ball, remember?
Agree that there is a definition of authoritarianism. I agree with Gadianton, application is subject to quantification and qualification. A point you have not absorbed. The definition is also some contrived soupy gravy.
Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way.
— Gadianton
Buy it or not, I ain’t the vendor. And whether you buy it doesn’t change the market.
If the vendor you're talking about is Donald Trump or any of his obsequiously loyal and corrupt appointees, there is a high likelihood they were lying. I don't trust them any further than I can cyber toss the Washington Monument!
I wasn’t.
Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way.
— Gadianton
Do you agree with the definition of authoritarianism or would you care to clarify what it is? Play the ball, remember?
Agree that there is a definition of authoritarianism. I agree with Gadianton, application is subject to quantification and qualification. A point you have not absorbed. The definition is also some contrived soupy gravy.
The FCC chair telling a broadcast network they need to act according to the personal interest of the President is hardly soupy gravy though it stinks and has that consistency maybe. It matters in a way saying employment is not a right misses at best, disingenuously misdirects at worst.
Agree that there is a definition of authoritarianism. I agree with Gadianton, application is subject to quantification and qualification. A point you have not absorbed. The definition is also some contrived soupy gravy.
The FCC chair telling a broadcast network they need to act according to the personal interest of the President is hardly soupy gravy though it stinks and has that consistency maybe. It matters in a way saying employment is not a right misses at best, disingenuously misdirects at worst.
Interesting. This relies on Sinclair and Disney having no autonomy or balls and it also relies on knowing the entirety of the FCC’s communication and intent. I damn sure don't know everything and I damn sure don't think Sinclair lacks agency, lawyers or common sense.
Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way.
— Gadianton
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
I want to hear and watch the words coming right out of Kimmel's own mouth regarding that assertion.
SHOW it to me.
Kimmel said that MAGA people were pointing fingers away from themselves, looking for an outsider to be the guilty party. And they were. I don't see how that is inaccurate or unfair. A large number of MAGA influencers and talking heads were screaming about the "Left" being responsible for Kirk's death. This was before there was any kind of sober weighing of the evidence. So, Kimmel was describing something that was real. As far as I can tell, that was the pretext for taking him off the air. I think it was in fact just Brendan Carr exploiting the opportunity to accomplish something his boss Trump had wanted done for a long time.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
The FCC chair telling a broadcast network they need to act according to the personal interest of the President is hardly soupy gravy though it stinks and has that consistency maybe. It matters in a way saying employment is not a right misses at best, disingenuously misdirects at worst.
Interesting. This relies on Sinclair and Disney having no autonomy or balls and it also relies on knowing the entirety of the FCC’s communication and intent. I damn sure don't know everything and I damn sure don't think Sinclair lacks agency, lawyers or common sense.
It does appear Disney lacked balls as you say. Sinclair has been holding a rock waiting for the word to throw it for a long time.
We know what Carr said. It is a clear example of executive overreach. It is the one fact that matters when it comes to the issue around Kimmel. Did the government exert influence to benefit the would-be king or did they follow the rules when he said it?
