The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 94K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
Oh yes, I remember well when Obama’s FCC said to ABC, “we can do this the hard way or the easy way” in reference to removing Roseanne.

Yup, it’s the exact same thing.

You are apparently confusing cancel culture with government pressure. They are not the same thing at all.

Remember when conservatives had a freak out about liberal politicians simply writing letters to social media companies about disinformation. And those letters didn’t come anywhere close to what Carr said. Nor did they have the force of executive action. They were largely from Congressmen.
Click to expand...
And to be clear, that was during the first Trump administration when Roseanne was fired; in 2018. At the time, ABC apparently didn’t think it was a good idea to have someone who likened a black person to an ape be a representative of their network.
 
Stasi is coming. Those on this board worried about what we say here may not be far off.
Look for Ram and Callatroy to dime us all out to the brown shirts. Rock and NYC will be pressured to give up our email addresses and whereabouts. That next knock on the door may be scarier than you think.
🤓😈🥸🤡
 
Instead of turning the FCC into a political watchdog, here's an idea:
Fox (or another right-leaning broadcast company) can launch some entertaining political satire of their own. Fox "News"'s intrinsic entertainment value doesn't count, although they did have some fun with Paul Pelosi being attacked when Nancy was the target.
The free market should decide what is actually funny; not the government. Isn't that consistent with basic conservative principles?
Maybe the format of late-night shows is dying of natural causes. Maybe not enough people think sharp political satire is humorous anymore. Maybe not. Jost and Che still seem to be doing fine, at least. The decisions to cancel/suspend Kimmel and Colbert for purportedly financial reasons really may not be political. Let's see.
 
Ramrouser said:
You mean government pressure the way the Biden Administration directed Twitter and Facebook (among other social media companies) to cancel conservatives and suppress information? Zuckerberg has testified about the immense pressure the Federal government placed on him to comply.
Click to expand...
Oh boy. The government may regulate speech when doing so is integral to some valid regulatory program. For instance, the securities laws pressure companies to report their earnings accurately. There, pressure means "if you don't do it, you will go to jail." And yet it is OK because the target isn't the speech; it's the action of defrauding that is being addressed, and defrauding invariably involves speech.

Combatting misinformation about pharma products is much the same. The FDA can prevent you from claiming that your medicine cures X when it doesn't. In fact, the FDA has to approve all labeling. Again, it's not speech being regulated; it's the snake oil and the speech regulation is incidental.

So the Biden administration was well within its rights to ask social media platforms not to allow false information to be circulated. The key there is false. Nobody was getting deplatformed for saying, "I hate vaccines" or "vaccines suck" or "vaccines are for losers."
 
rodoheel said:
Not entirely fair to include Rogan in that list. He's not the raving Trumper those other guys are. Though in his own way he probably had way more impact on getting Trump elected than any of those other clowns.
Click to expand...
Hard disagree. Rogan is every bit the raving Trumper those folks are. Any critique he has of Trump is shallow and disengenuous to the nth degree.
 
Ramrouser said:
Not a free speech issue.

Fox (Kilmeade's employer) made the business decision to retain him. Kimmel's employer reached a different commercial decision.
Click to expand...
Where did I say it was a free speech issue?

I said that one statement is worse than the other. I've not advocated for either to be fired. One statement is clearly worse than the other, people's response says a lot about who they are.

Additionally ABC succumb to the mob pressure of a corrupt administration, while Fox shows once again that it is a piece of shit that is willing to accept lies or anything else in order to make money and keep viewership.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Hard disagree. Rogan is every bit the raving Trumper those folks are. Any critique he has of Trump is shallow and disengenuous to the nth degree.
Click to expand...
Yep. Remember that time he was mocking Joe Biden for something he thought Joe Biden said, and then he realized that it was actually Trump who said it (he was mistaken because Joe Biden quoted Trump to demonstrate what a fool Trump was), and then he defended Trump for saying that exact same thing that he mocked Biden for saying?
 
wmheel1287 said:
Hard disagree. Rogan is every bit the raving Trumper those folks are. Any critique he has of Trump is shallow and disengenuous to the nth degree.
Click to expand...
I'm on your side here and I think Rogan's podcast has generally been an anti-intellectual, anti-government, anti-public health cancer (mainly through Rogan's choice in who to platform and his interview style of wide-eyed, naif-ish credulity towards all sorts of nonsense people have spewed at him). But I honestly don't think this is correct. Rogan absolutely supported and endorsed Trump in 2024, but he has never been a slavish worshipper of Trump like those other bozos, and has openly criticized him at times since he was elected. He's not, like, going to Mar-a-Lago and the White House and reflexively defending Trump, like the other people listed have.
 
Ramrouser said:
Ok I'll give you another grievance since you all think Dems are perfect.

Grassley just released documents detailing the FBI/DOJ's "Arctic Frost" investigation where the agencies targeted for investigation 92 Republican allied organizations including Kirk's Turning Points USA. Total weaponization of the DOJ/FBI.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t just an out of the blue weaponization, it was part of an investigation of the republican efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Of course they looked into the financing, that’s how it works. You’re so disingenuous
 
This is a good piece from The Ringer of all places (not where I would normally expect biting political commentary) about how frustrating it is to watch powerful corporations and institutions fold to the Administration's coercion rather than fighting:

www.theringer.com

The Age of Corporate Capitulation Won’t Work

Donald Trump came for Jimmy Kimmel. Disney folded immediately. It’s not just bad morals. It’s bad business.
www.theringer.com
 
Centerpiece said:
Stasi is coming. Those on this board worried about what we say here may not be far off.
Look for Ram and Callatroy to dime us all out to the brown shirts. Rock and NYC will be pressured to give up our email addresses and whereabouts. That next knock on the door may be scarier than you think.
🤓😈🥸🤡
Click to expand...
Have a nice weekend!
 
Ramrouser said:
Ok I'll give you another grievance since you all think Dems are perfect.

Grassley just released documents detailing the FBI/DOJ's "Arctic Frost" investigation where the agencies targeted for investigation 92 Republican allied organizations including Kirk's Turning Points USA. Total weaponization of the DOJ/FBI.
Click to expand...
You guys seem to think that just because a person is political, they can't be fairly prosecuted.

That's why you say "weaponization" when it was Trump being prosecuted. It was not weaponized. It would have prosecuted anyone in that situation. Of course, only Trump would be in that situation, but that doesn't mean it was targeted.

If the entire Republican party got together and decided to launch missiles at major US cities, why wouldn't it be appropriate to prosecute the entire Republican party?
 
Centerpiece said:
Stasi is coming. Those on this board worried about what we say here may not be far off.
Look for Ram and Callatroy to dime us all out to the brown shirts. Rock and NYC will be pressured to give up our email addresses and whereabouts. That next knock on the door may be scarier than you think.
🤓😈🥸🤡
Click to expand...

You just used Tren de Aragua emojis, off to gitmo.
 
Ramrouser said:
I've said repeatedly that I do not support the FCC's recent actions but I still believe it was more of a business decision vs real fear of losing its license.
Click to expand...
And again we must ask whether this guy is actually a lawyer.

Ram, let's suppose the following happens. A guy comes to you and says, "I've got a business that I operate with this one asset. Using the asset requires a license. A government official just said he thinking about taking my license away. What can I do?"

There are a lot of answers a lawyer might provide. None of them are "eh, they're probably just spouting off so don't worry about it. You'll most likely be fine." Like, making sure it's going to be fine is literally the purpose of your profession. You might say, "it's probably not a serious threat, but we need to do X, Y and Z to make sure." You would never say, "your fear isn't real."
 
Ramrouser said:
He's a wise guy/smart ass who often thinks he's funny.
Click to expand...
and yet in his "sorry sorry sorry " disingenuous apology he made no mention that his response was a lame attempt to make a joke.

I wonder why he did not clarify that he was being a smart ass and his intent was to make a funny joke ? Rhetorical question...

You need to stop digging that hole and find a new excuse for Kilmeade advocating the murder of mentally ill and homeless Americans by the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top