Trump's War on the First Amendment

[Whiskey]

Kish man. What is your incentive to lie to Markk - about Markk? Are you trying to completely crap out every last runny squirt of credibility you may have had remaining?

Really, walk me through this. You wake up and decide you are going to say unverified nonsense to someone and they know it is not true. Why do that? What outcome were you hoping for?

Empty verbiage. Distractions. Lie about Markk? What the eff are you even talking about?

Here's one for you: you never had a runny squirt of credibility, and you are not improving in that area with every additional empty, nasty trolling post you put up.

That is a good point. Start from the baseline assumption that my credibility is zero and you have no reason to even acknowledge me. That is fine. That helps, frankly. My opinions are meaningless. Now, if you say Markk knows nothing about the corporate world, but in fact, he has senior level experience in finance, marketing, accounting, materials management, human resources or corporate tax, what should his conclusion be about you?

[Kishkumen]

That is a good point. Start from the baseline assumption that my credibility is zero and you have no reason to even acknowledge me. That is fine. That helps, frankly. My opinions are meaningless. Now, if you say Markk knows nothing about the corporate world, but in fact, he has senior level experience in finance, marketing, accounting, materials management, human resources or corporate tax, what should his conclusion be about you?

If he does have that experience, he has a funny way of showing it. Or he just chooses to misrepresent what he knows because he is dishonest--and that would be surprising to almost nobody on this board.

[Whiskey]

That is a good point. Start from the baseline assumption that my credibility is zero and you have no reason to even acknowledge me. That is fine. That helps, frankly. My opinions are meaningless. Now, if you say Markk knows nothing about the corporate world, but in fact, he has senior level experience in finance, marketing, accounting, materials management, human resources or corporate tax, what should his conclusion be about you?

If he does have that experience, he has a funny way of showing it. Or he just chooses to misrepresent what he knows because he is dishonest--and that would be surprising to almost nobody on this board.

Doubling down. This is interesting. Funny way of showing it? This is a message board, not a damned X talk for corporate experience.

[Kishkumen]

Doubling down. This is interesting. Funny way of showing it? This is a message board, not a damned X talk for corporate experience.

Hey, if Markk wants to tell me what this evidence means, he will have to do so with the knowledge of the kind of message it is found in. Both of you can ignore that, but that doesn't particularly help him prove his point.

[canpakes]

.
Sinclair is putting Jimmy Kimmel back on the air. 

The TV broadcaster, which owns ABC affiliates in markets including Washington, D.C., Seattle and St. Louis, said it will end its preemption of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and air the late-night show again beginning Friday. 

ABC suspended the show earlier this month after remarks Kimmel made about the killing of conservative activist and podcast host Charlie Kirk. ABC brought the show back Tuesday, but Sinclair said it still wouldn’t carry it at that time. 

“Our decision to preempt this program was independent of any government interaction or influence,” Sinclair said Friday. “Free speech provides broadcasters with the right to exercise judgment as to the content on their local stations.”

- Wall Street Journal, 9/26

[Chap]

“Our decision to preempt this program was independent of any government interaction or influence,” Sinclair said Friday.

'Course it was!

[Whiskey]

“Our decision to preempt this program was independent of any government interaction or influence,” Sinclair said Friday.

'Course it was!

Y'all were a lot more enthusiastic when free speech was not being threatened but you had a testimony that it was.

[Markk]

Doubling down. This is interesting. Funny way of showing it? This is a message board, not a damned X talk for corporate experience.

Hey, if Markk wants to tell me what this evidence means, he will have to do so with the knowledge of the kind of message it is found in. Both of you can ignore that, but that doesn't particularly help him prove his point.

Lol...read cakes quote directly under your post

Sinclair is putting Jimmy Kimmel back on the air.

The TV broadcaster, which owns ABC affiliates in markets including Washington, D.C., Seattle and St. Louis, said it will end its preemption of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and air the late-night show again beginning Friday.

ABC suspended the show earlier this month after remarks Kimmel made about the killing of conservative activist and podcast host Charlie Kirk. ABC brought the show back Tuesday, but Sinclair said it still wouldn’t carry it at that time.

“Our decision to preempt this program was independent of any government interaction or influence,” Sinclair said Friday. “Free speech provides broadcasters with the right to exercise judgment as to the content on their local stations.”

- Wall Street Journal, 9/26

[Doctor Steuss]

Here is what Sincair said on the 17th:

We appreciate FCC Chairman Carr’s remarks today and this incident highlights the critical need for the FCC to take immediate regulatory action to address control held over local broadcasters by the big national networks.

Unless there were other remarks, I'm guessing the remarks they appreciate were Carr's remarks that ABC affiliates (like Sinclair) could "do this the easy way or the hard way," and that if they didn't find ways to "take actions on Kimmel," the FCC would be doing some "additional work."

Sinclair can back-peddle now to try to reclaim potential lost ad revenue in the metropolitan markets that they operate, but I think the plain reading of their prior statement is that they were listening to the threat from Carr (who was toeing Trump's line) and not only choosing to do things "the easy way," but kissing the federal ring as well.

[Whiskey]

Here is what Sincair said on the 17th:

We appreciate FCC Chairman Carr’s remarks today and this incident highlights the critical need for the FCC to take immediate regulatory action to address control held over local broadcasters by the big national networks.

Unless there were other remarks, I'm guessing the remarks they appreciate were Carr's remarks that ABC affiliates (like Sinclair) could "do this the easy way or the hard way," and that if they didn't find ways to "take actions on Kimmel," the FCC would be doing some "additional work."

Sinclair can back-peddle now to try to reclaim potential lost ad revenue in the metropolitan markets that they operate, but I think the plain reading of their prior statement is that they were listening to the threat from Carr (who was toeing Trump's line) and not only choosing to do things "the easy way," but kissing the federal ring as well.

Is it possible, not probable, but possible, that you are reading things into this that are not there?