ABC pulls Jimmy Kimmel Live after comments on Charlie Kirk

[Chesterton]

No they are also using celebrate to describe things like Mr Kimmels performance.

Your point? Just trying to defend the false thing you said?

As for the stuff you describe. Thats a pretty micro minority. I can see how its useful to elevate it to "mainstream" tho depending on ones agenda.

It's not a micro minority. Consider that every single person who does that celebrating through media is doing it for an audience they already know is there. Also consider that many Americans who completely agree with those demonic sentiments just aren't bold enough, or aren't stupid enough, to put their faces online.

 

[durangodawood]

Your point? Just trying to defend the false thing you said?

I say true things.

It's not a micro minority. Consider that every single person who does that celebrating through media is doing it for an audience they already know is there. Also consider that many Americans who completely agree with those demonic sentiments just aren't bold enough, or aren't stupid enough, to put their faces online.

Ah the "silent majority" who goes through life not daring to utter their true sentiments. Absent evidence, this is pure supposition from you and something of a calumny.

 

[Chesterton]

Ah the "silent majority" who goes through life not daring to utter their true sentiments. Absent evidence, this is pure supposition from you and something of a calumny.

That's not the original meaning of "silent majority", and I didn't say they were a majority of the population, but they could be, which is why I keep my ammo dry. If you want some evidence, look at the Democrats. Fifty-eight of them voted against the resolution to honor Kirk. The Democrat/Democratic* Party is still not just viable, but very powerful. I don't understand how it wasn't resigned to the dustbin of history 20 years ago.

* I used both words because one of them is against the rules of CF, but I can never remember which one since they both mean the same thing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What's particularly frustrating about this one, is that Trump's FCC guy should've (in the words of Martin Crane from Frasier) "kept his big bazoo shut"

Bringing FCC regulated media to heel is the whole reason Carr is heading the FCC. He did exactly what he was installed to do.

 

[JSRG]

That's not the original meaning of "silent majority", and I didn't say they were a majority of the population, but they could be, which is why I keep my ammo dry. If you want some evidence, look at the Democrats. Fifty-eight of them voted against the resolution to honor Kirk. The Democrat/Democratic* Party is still not just viable, but very powerful. I don't understand how it wasn't resigned to the dustbin of history 20 years ago.

* I used both words because one of them is against the rules of CF, but I can never remember which one since they both mean the same thing.

Why would they have been resigned to the dustbin of history 20 years ago? This would have been 2005, and the only thing I can think of is that one year prior the Democrats had gotten some notable defeats in 2004 (Bush winning re-election and Democrats losing in House and Senate). But both Democrats and Republicans have managed to come back from worse defeats than that. And they did so quite quickly, in fact; in 2006 (19 years ago) they made great gains and gained a majority in both House and Senate (technically Democrats didn't have a majority, but the two Independents in the Senate (Sanders and Liebermann) were more aligned with Democrats than Republicans, especially Sanders). Then they made even stronger gains in 2008.

So I'm not exactly sure why you're surprised Democrats not doing so well in 2004 didn't result in them going to the dustbin of history. It's like wondering why Republicans didn't go into the dustbin of history 17 years ago.

 

[Chesterton]

Why would they have been resigned to the dustbin of history 20 years ago? This would have been 2005, and the only thing I can think of is that one year prior the Democrats had gotten some notable defeats in 2004 (Bush winning re-election and Democrats losing in House and Senate). But both Democrats and Republicans have managed to come back from worse defeats than that. And they did so quite quickly, in fact; in 2006 (19 years ago) they made great gains and gained a majority in both House and Senate (technically Democrats didn't have a majority, but the two Independents in the Senate (Sanders and Liebermann) were more aligned with Democrats than Republicans, especially Sanders). Then they made even stronger gains in 2008.

So I'm not exactly sure why you're surprised Democrats not doing so well in 2004 didn't result in them going to the dustbin of history. It's like wondering why Republicans didn't go into the dustbin of history 17 years ago.

I made a mistake. I should have said 30 years ago.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The fact that you equate this:

If you want some evidence, look at the Democrats. Fifty-eight of them voted against the resolution to honor Kirk.

with this:

Celebrate is what we call celebrate, as in, laughing joyously, expressing extreme happiness and thankfulness, playing music and dancing, using fake blood to re-enact a man getting shot in the neck, writing up hit lists of who they want murdered next...

would tend to counter this:

Incorrect.

 

[durangodawood]

That's not the original meaning of "silent majority",

Its the exact meaning of "silent majority" as Falwell used it.. He just applied it to a different group at the time.

and I didn't say they were a majority of the population, but they could be, which is why I keep my ammo dry. If you want some evidence, look at the Democrats. Fifty-eight of them voted against the resolution to honor Kirk. The Democrat/Democratic* Party is still not just viable, but very powerful. I don't understand how it wasn't resigned to the dustbin of history 20 years ago.

So not-honoring in congress is now = celebrating, or evidence of it? You can see why dont take your assessment of all this seriously.

 

[Chesterton]

The fact that you equate this:

with this:

would tend to counter this:

Its the exact meaning of "silent majority" as Falwell used it.. He just applied it to a different group at the time.


So not-honoring in congress is now = celebrating, or evidence of it? You can see why dont take your assessment of all this seriously.

Obviously I didn't equate one with the other, but merely suggested you can tell where sympathies lie.

As for "silent majority", I was using it as Nixon originally used it long before Falwell.

 

[durangodawood]

...As for "silent majority", I was using it as Nixon originally used it long before Falwell.

Cool. I learned a new thing!

 

[Bradskii]

I've already given my explanation. You seem to think Kirk was the first person who ever voiced this concern. It was being discussed a couple of decades before Kirk was born.

I'm equally certain that quite a few people have expressed such an idiotic view.

 

[Bradskii]

It absolutely was not. It's something you want to think, because of your hatred for him or something. You're trying to accuse a good man of being racist, and I'm tired of hearing it.

It can't have been plainer. If a pilot is black then, whoa...maybe he's only got those stripes because he's black. And I don't know about you but I can call his death a tragedy, I can sympathise with his family and friends and I can still point out that he said something remarkably stupid.

 

[JSRG]

I made a mistake. I should have said 30 years ago.

Can you clarify what happened 30 years ago that provoked that remark of you being surprised the Democrats weren't left to the dustbin of history? I'm not sure what of importance happened in 1995. Maybe you're referring to results of the 1994 or 1996 elections, but if so I'm not sure which one. In 1994, the Republicans did manage incredible gains in the Senate and House (this was the first time in more than 40 years they had a House majority), but while their increases were dramatic, their totals ultimately weren't all that amazing. Republicans did increase their share of the Senate in 1996 and maintain a smaller majority in the House, but Clinton won re-election that same year so it was a bit of a wash on the whole.

 

[Chesterton]

Can you clarify what happened 30 years ago that provoked that remark of you being surprised the Democrats weren't left to the dustbin of history? I'm not sure what of importance happened in 1995. Maybe you're referring to results of the 1994 or 1996 elections, but if so I'm not sure which one. In 1994, the Republicans did manage incredible gains in the Senate and House (this was the first time in more than 40 years they had a House majority), but while their increases were dramatic, their totals ultimately weren't all that amazing. Republicans did increase their share of the Senate in 1996 and maintain a smaller majority in the House, but Clinton won re-election that same year so it was a bit of a wash on the whole.

It was the behavior of Democrats regarding the removal of Bill Clinton from office for crimes that you or I would serve prison terms for.

 

[NxNW]

Every sport can be cheap to play.

Especially auto racing.

 

[NxNW]

It was the behavior of Democrats regarding the removal of Bill Clinton from office for crimes that you or I would serve prison terms for.

Bill Clinton committed no such crimes.

 

[JSRG]

It was the behavior of Democrats regarding the removal of Bill Clinton from office for crimes that you or I would serve prison terms for.

That was 27 years ago, not 30 years ago. Your phrasing was very unclear.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

"Celebrate" is what people on the right call it when someone simply points out how the victim might have been less than a saint.

So we have be make sure we're comparing apples to apples here.

Is that why so many democrats have left the party because they have found the democrat reaction to be too disgusting for them to tolerate?

 

[NxNW]

I made a mistake. I should have said 30 years ago.

Clinton was elected because Bush Sr got us into a recession and raised taxes. The economy under Clinton was good, and he eliminated the deficit.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Bill Clinton committed no such crimes.

Bill Clinton would have been sent to jail for life if he was a regular person who lied about adultery in the workplace.