wing2000 said:

Good point. However, the government was clearly demanding that he be removed. Disney/ABC would not have fired him were it not for pressure from the FTC Chair.


Kimmel’s suspension was announced hours after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr criticized the comedian and implied that the FCC could retaliate against those who aired him.


...and then there's this: [Nexstar owns ABC stations in 30 markets]


Notably, Nexstar is seeking the Trump administration’s approval to acquire Tegna, another big group of U.S. stations. The deal requires the FCC to loosen the government’s limits on broadcast station ownership.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmel-suspension-celebrities-react/

Click to expand...

The FCC attempting to shut it down would end up in court in a heartbeat and lose. That's not an issue. Your cite has the implication that this is an issue without evidence that it is.

Meanwhile, we do know affiliates pre-empting the show is an issue. In looking for a statement by Sinclair, the other big affiliate player involved, who intends to run a tribute to Kirk one night in that slot, I found this:

Nexstar Denies Jimmy Kimmel Suspension Was Due to FCC Pressure

Sinclair has also stated the FCC had no role in pre-empting the show.

The ironic thing? When Fox removed Tucker Carlson for similar reasons. Kimmel celebrated on-air with crude comments.

Vambram said:

Unfortunately, there was a DEI component to earning a pilots license.

Click to expand...

You can tell us what that was if you'd be so kind. But are you suggesting that pilots are granted a license on anything other than their ability to fly a plane? This will make international news if true.

If it ain't, then what point were you trying to make?

RocksInMyHead said:

You provided a link to an anti-Hillary hit piece listing a selection of her votes. I asked you to point out some that you thought were "far left," and that's where you got huffy. That's the extent of your evidence.

Is there something that I said that you feel needs to be supported? Ask me to back something up and I'll do my best.

If you're not trying to convince me of anything, why would you care that I'm "not willing to learn"?

Click to expand...

Tell you what, I provided evidence for my opinion but you have not. Why don’t you try to convince me that your opinion is right.

Chesterton said:

If you don't accept the reality that's is us vs. them then you just have your head in the sand.

Click to expand...

Finding common ground is always a good thing. It always improves matters. But the 'us and them' doesn't, and mustn't include people who use violence as a means to an end.

Chesterton said:

Are you aware that Newsom is the leading contender to be the next Democrat presidential candidate? Smart move on his part.

Click to expand...

I really am sorry that you actually thought that he was being self serving when he said what all reasonable people should have said.

That's an ugly view of the world you have there.

essentialsaltes said:

From the creepy USCIS announcement:

"American citizenship is the most sacred citizenship in the world and should only be reserved for aliens who will fully embrace our values and principles as a nation. By ensuring only those aliens who meet all eligibility requirements ... the American people can be assured that those joining us as fellow citizens are fully assimilated and will contribute to America’s greatness."

Click to expand...

Creepy how? Do we want citizens who do not embrace our values and principles? Is vetting for such objectionable? Is the idea of the melting pot now objectionable? Do we want naturalized citizens who will not contribute to America's greatness? What, precisely, is the creepy part?

As I type this I'm thinking of two naturalized US citizens who are the most patriotic Americans I've ever met. Both embrace our values and principles as a nation. Both are as fully assimilated into US society as you can get. Is this considered a bad thing now?

Say it aint so said:

Anytime they say "lack of credible evidence" that is code for we have bupkis.

Click to expand...

Or "We can't find anyone unethical enough to pursue this".

partinobodycular said:

Okay, I'm just gonna throw this out there... I don't have a problem with political violence. In the realm of political discourse people have a right to express themselves, and that expression exists on a spectrum from benevolent to violent. I understand the idea that there need to be boundaries, but I don't see why.

Click to expand...

Knowing that it's going to be a problem and saying that it's acceptable are two entirely different things. If you can't see that 'Don't shoot people with whom you disagree' is a reasonable boundary then I'm at a loss...

partinobodycular said:

Politics is specifically about exercising control over the behavior of others, just as the husband does in the above scenario. But with all due respect to @Landon Caeli's response, the governed are often left to accept that control with little or no recourse. In which case the governed have the right to raise the level of social discourse beyond what would otherwise be generally accepted social norms. When or if that discourse rises to the level of violence isn't something that can be regulated away... it's the right of the abused to oppose their abuser.

Click to expand...

We're all controlled by rules and regulations and laws. But we accept that as necessary in order to live in a world where people can't do everything that they want. It's a social contract to which we all agree. Well, almost all. The government says I can't drive my car at 200kph but I can drive it where I want. My wife is expert at some things, like finances, so she controls the money and tells me if we can afford to build a deck. But I'll tell her how big it can be and how it's going to be built. That's not the scenario I was talking about - wherea man (generally) controls all aspects of his wife's life. She can't make any decisions at all. She's not allowed.

partinobodycular said:

If you hadn't noticed... people are crazy. They're not always going to respond as passively as you want them to and I have absolutely no problem with that.

Click to expand...

So if someone breaks into your home and assaults your wife..?

Servus said:

Bingo. It's their website and they can delete whatever they want to on it. Was I supposed to come up with a conspiracy theory?

I don't care because I don't read those things and neither do you.

Click to expand...

There is no conspiracy theory to this. They just purge and delete facts, science, and basically reality when it doesn't suit them.
See post 18. It's "well we won't have a covid problem if we just stop testing."
And yes, I do read government websites.
They are a source of education, but when that org loves the poorly educated, the poorly educated are indifferent about data.

[...after we screen your social media, email accounts and anything else we can access]

Kash Patel says court orders bar him from releasing the Epstein files. Judges have said otherwise.​

Patel appears to be mischaracterizing those recent court orders, which came amid a hurried effort by the Trump administration to ask federal judges for permission to release grand jury materials stemming from the case of Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.

In fact, one of the judges who ruled on the grand jury matter ... said the Trump administration had the power to release the [FBI records but not the grand jury records].

Patel then cited other sealed orders and protective orders

“Why are you not going to a court, like you did for the grand jury testimony?” Goldman wondered. “You are hiding the Epstein files, Mr. Patel. You are part of the cover-up.”

tampasteve said:

Parking of the eucharist/communion is an outward sign of being properly prepared as well as unity with the church that you are taking it at. If you are not Catholic then you are not prepared or in unity with the church, why would you want to pretend otherwise? I am in an impaired state with the RCC and can't take communion either. The Eucharist matters to the Catholic Church, it isn't just a symbol and it isn't just sharing a meal - it is the literal body and blood of Christ, it isn't just a sign or symbol. If one attends a denomination where it is just a symbol or sign then fine, we can all partake as that is just a symbolic gesture.

Click to expand...

That said I don’t think Christians who believe in the real presence should partake of the Eucharist in churches that deny it - the closest I would be prepared to get is in the case of churches like the Anglicans that lean towards a believe in the Real Presence without in most cases dogmatizing it.

Of course some Anglicans do dogmatize the Real Presence, for example Continuing Anglo Catholics and High Church Anglicans like the Anglican Province of Christ The King Sovereign Priest in the Western US. Those provinces are basically Old Catholics but with an Anglican liturgical patrimony. For this reason some of them have close relations with some conservative Lutheran denominations.

RileyG said:

I’m not censorship. It’s consequences to poor decisions.

Click to expand...

It’s not a “news show”.

I would say The Holy spirit, is the most gentle and kind and loving person in the universe, if you were scared, it was not Him.

rambot said:

J6 was an EMBARRASSING attempt to influence and change the results of that election. They did SUCH a poor job of it that now their supporters are just saying "they weren't trying to".

Click to expand...

The violent ones were mostly antifa. Not sure why Trump pardoned them.

essentialsaltes said:

“The people that went there to express their views, to support Trump, were peaceful,” said Richard Baum, 61, an independent voter from Odessa, Tex. “The government implants were the violent ones: the FBI, the police people that were put in there, the antifa and BLM hired by George Soros; everybody knows that.”

Click to expand...

Freth said:

From what I'm hearing: He was also lying to his audience, sticking to the narrative that Tyler was MAGA. The FCC is considering pulling ABC's FCC license. My guess is they didn't want to lose their license, so they pulled the plug to save their network.

Click to expand...

Amazing that we’re at the point of demanding late-night comedians adhere to “the ‘official’ truth” while letting National leaders lie as much as they’d like.
Yup.

rjs330 said:

Newsome was correct.

Click to expand...

Of course, because he was reading from our script, that being the script of human decency.

jas3 said:

But then again, that kind of ecumenist nonsense is part of why I didn't become Roman Catholic when I left Methodism.

Click to expand...

Rest assured, you won’t find that in the Orthodox Church, except between churches we are in communion with, for example, Fr. Josiah Trenham delivered a homily at a parish near his that if I recall is of another denomination and made a delightful joke about the youth of his parish sneaking out to associate with the youth of that parish. Also people like Metropolitan Kalllistos Ware have spoken at Oriental Orthodox churches but not in the context of the homily at the Divine Liturgy (although intercommunion does exist, at least in the middle east*, for members of the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox under the ecumenical agreement between the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchs in the early 1990s, His Holiness Ignatius Zakka Iwas and His beatitude Ignatius IV, but that being said the two churches haven’t yet formally concelebrated the liturgy).

*In the US, apparently this is not the case with the AOCNA, but the AOCNA is a special case - an autonomous church of ethnic Antiochians that used to be part of the Russian Orthodox Church which was itself shattered into two parts like the rest of the ROC as a result of the Bolshevik revolution, and which in its reunified state retains various Slavonic influences in its church music and other things, for example, the system of liturgical colors.

Chesterton said:

If you don't accept the reality that's is us vs. them then you just have your head in the sand.

Are you aware that Newsom is the leading contender to be the next Democrat presidential candidate? Smart move on his part.

Click to expand...

Newsome was correct.

GoldenBoy89 said:

View attachment 370225
View attachment 370226
View attachment 370227
View attachment 370228

Click to expand...

IT's like arguing there was no civil war cause they lost.


J6 was an EMBARRASSING attempt to influence and change the results of that election. They did SUCH a poor job of it that now their supporters are just saying "they weren't trying to".


It's