Kimmel is Back

[Hazelelponi]

He didn't in the statement I posted. --> Kimmel: "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."

When the facts of any case involve shooting one of the more beloved members of any movement in public execution style you can pretty much guarantee that the shooter wasn't coming from inside the movement itself.

Let's break down what Jimmy Kimmel said:

Kimmel: "We hit some new lows over the weekend"

Lows? What is a "low"? What is he even talking about. We can - and human beings will - infer that this "low" is something negative and bad, perhaps indicating some falsehoods are being perpetuated.

"with the MAGA gang desperately"

Desperately? As if this "low" was very difficult to achieve and took much effort to contrive.

"desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk"

So the "low" that is taking much effort to contrive is a particular characterization of the murderer of a public speaker, the characterization being espoused by MAGA.

"as anything other than one of them"

So it's apparently specifically the characterization that the shooter is not MAGA, that MAGA is sinking to new lows and desperately trying to mischaracterize.

Meaning, the shooter is MAGA and MAGA is just lying when they say it's not.

" and doing everything they can to score political points from it."

Apparently just to score political points.

Conclusion: Jimmy Kimmel is a liar who was caught out lying. In order to get Jimmy Kimmel his job back after using the public air waves to lie to people, a gun man shot up ABC. Jimmy Kimmel rehired, and the left goes on and idiocy continues.

 

[childeye 2]

When the facts of any case involve shooting one of the more beloved members of any movement in public execution style you can pretty much guarantee that the shooter wasn't coming from inside the movement itself.

This is sound reasoning.

Let's break down what Jimmy Kimmel said:

Kimmel: "We hit some new lows over the weekend"

Lows? What is a "low"? What is he even talking about. We can - and human beings will - infer that this "low" is something negative and bad, perhaps indicating some falsehoods are being perpetuated.

I would say a "new low" would imply a deeper level of something already insidious to begin with.

I think Kimmel could be referring to Trump blaming " Radical left Rhetoric" for the murder, as opposed to anything Charlie Kirk said.

"with the MAGA gang desperately"

Desperately? As if this "low" was very difficult to achieve and took much effort to contrive.


"desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk"

So the "low" that is taking much effort to contrive is a particular characterization of the murderer of a public speaker, the characterization being espoused by MAGA.

"as anything other than one of them"

So it's apparently specifically the characterization that the shooter is not MAGA that MAGA is sinking to new lows and desperately trying to mischaracterize.

Saying that MAGA is "desperately trying" to Characterize the shooter as anything other than their own for the sake of scoring political points would not automatically infer that Kimmel is saying the shooter is MAGA. For example, the shooter comes from a conservative family of Trump supporters. But there could be multiple reasons why Kimmel said, "anything other than their own".

Meaning, the shooter is MAGA and MAGA is just lying when they say it's not.

Let's agree that Kimmel didn't say outright that the shooter is MAGA. If he had, then that could easily be disproven since Charlie Kirk was pro-Trump.

So, by practicing some Grace and preferring to assume Kimmel is speaking forthrightly, it seems to me that Kimmel viewed an attempt to blame "anything other than MAGA", for the murder. Hence Kimmel worded his statement to convey that even moderates on both the left and right were not so low as the "MAGA Gang", so as to try and use the occasion of Charlie's death to blame any rhetoric from anywhere that could depict Trump as a self-serving wannabe authoritarian narcissistic dictator.

That's why Kimmel played the video of Trump talking about the ball room.

Jimmy Kimmel is a liar who was caught out lying. In order to get Jimmy Kimmel his job back after using the public air waves to lie to people, a gun man shot up ABC. Jimmy Kimmel rehired, and the left goes on and idiocy continues.

Slander is saying bad things about others without proof. There is no evidence Kimmel was lying. There is evidence of people taking the liberty to call Kimmel a liar based on a dubious paraphrasing of his words.

 

[Yarddog]

Please.

No wonder you can't grasp the truth, you can't even grasp your own evidence.

They were wrong.

Always possible just as police could be wrong.

Robinson obviously is the assassin and the rifle that was found with is DNA all over it is obviously the murder weapon.

He definitely confessed in to it. The DNA only links the rifle to him, no surprise, he said it was but ballistics are needed to link the rifle to the murder.

 

[Hazelelponi]

think Kimmel could be referring to Trump blaming " Radical left Rhetoric" for the murder, as opposed to anything Charlie Kirk said.

Since Kimmel IS the radical left....

You do an impressive job trying to back walk Kimmel's comments. Kudos for the effort but unconvincing to any English speaking person in America.

He said lies and he meant every word.

 

[childeye 2]

Since Kimmel IS the radical left....

I know Kimmel is for free speech as are most Americans.

You do an impressive job trying to back walk Kimmel's comments. Kudos for the effort but unconvincing to any English speaking person in America.

Subjective semantic analysis.

The moment I read "unconvincing to any English-speaking person in America", I know the sentiment in the statement is false. I'm pretty sure you know there are people on this forum that believe Kimmel did not lie.

He said lies and he meant every word.

My testimony before God is that Kimmel was understood, by some, to be expressing that Tyler Robinson was MAGA. God knows my heart.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I know Kimmel is for free speech as are most Americans.

Yet he owes his job to a gunman, not the integrity of his speech or the quality thereof or the audience ratings his show receives.

Just a left wing nut job with a gun.

Too bad there wasn't more dedication to good sci-fi on your side of the aisle instead of personalities like Kimmel.

Subjective semantic analysis. The moment I read "unconvincing to any English speaking person in America", I know the sentiment in the statement is a false..

It's not false, I'm truly impressed by the level of Jimmy Kimmel apologetics.

The fact I'm unconvinced by the argument made, and believe any English speaking American would absolutely agree with my understanding of the English language as pertains Kimmel's speech, renders your apologetic on behalf of a far left personality who regularly attempts to sow discord and incite violence, no less impressive.

 

[Servus]

No wonder you can't grasp the truth, you can't even grasp your own evidence.

Uh oh, getting personal.

Always possible just as police could be wrong.

Even 'it was aliens' is possible.

He definitely confessed in to it.

In great detail, especially regarding the murder weapon.

The DNA only links the rifle to him, no surprise, he said it was but ballistics are needed to link the rifle to the murder.

If the round had exited, ricocheted and disappeared, there would still be enough beyond reasonable doubt evidence that the recovered rifle is the murder weapon.

 

[childeye 2]

Yet he owes his job to a gunman, not the integrity of his speech or the quality thereof or the audience ratings his show receives.

Just left wing nut jobs.

Do you have proof? If not, this is just slander that you're entertaining. Slander is saying bad things about others without proof.

It's not false, I'm truly impressed by the level of Jimmy Kimmel apologetics.

This sentiment indicates you have not heard any convincing alternative to your version that Kimmel lied --> Kudos for the effort but unconvincing to any English-speaking person in America.

The fact I'm unconvinced by the argument made, and believe any English speaking American would absolutely agree with my understanding of the English language as pertains Kimmel's speech doesn't render your apologetic on behalf of a far left personality who regularly attempts to sow discord and incite violence against people on the political right no less impressive.

You or I can't speak for Jimmy Kimmel and tell him what he means. Your words above as posed are claiming that your paraphrasing of Kimmel's words is an objective fact, when in reality it's a subjective view.

Subjective semantic analysis:
You just said above that you are convinced that any English-speaking American would definitively agree with your understanding of Kimmel's speech. <--Your conviction is false as shown in the poll below.

YouGov also asked in their poll whether Jimmy's comments were acceptable, including when he said on Monday, "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it." Those surveyed had split opinions, with 43% describing the comments as acceptable, 36% saying they were unacceptable and 21% saying they were unsure.

You gov poll

 

[Hazelelponi]

Do you have proof? If not, this is just slander that you're entertaining. Slander is saying bad things about others without proof.

Timeline of events.

1.) Jimmy Kimmel gets fired after lying on air.

2.) gunman angry that Kimmel is fired, shoots up an ABC affiliate.

3.) ABC announces Kimmel is reinstated.


While correlation is not necessarily causation we can infer that being terrified of Kimmel's unbalanced audience is a key factor in Kimmel's reinstatement.

It's not the show, his ratings are the lowest of any late night host in that time slot, according to AI.

I'm not sure how the truth slanders Kimmel. Its just the truth.

 

[iarwain]

Did he ever claim this? Perhaps he did, but I am not sure. Is there any evidence of his making such a claim?

You haven't seen the actual clip of Kimmel's statement? I suppose you might argue that he technically didn't say the shooter was MAGA, but he very heavily implied it. Here's the actual quote:

"We had some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points for it".

I imagine when Kimmel returns tonight he will double down on what he said, and probably go on to make even more vile attacks on the right. I certainly don't think he will apologize, because if he does the left wing crowd will boo him off the stage.

 

[childeye 2]

Perhaps, but most likely they call themselves liberals.

Okay, so I hope that you realize that if you believed them, you would be under the power of the same lie believing and repeating and reasoning upon that lie as if it were true. And the spirit that dwells within through the lie would be living in you.

 

[childeye 2]

Timeline of events.

1.) Jimmy Kimmel gets fired after lying on air.

He wasn't fired and this again is a blank assertion that he lied on air.

2.) gunman angry that Kimmel is fired, shoots up an ABC affiliate.


3.) ABC announces Kimmel is reinstated.



While correlation is not necessarily causation we can infer that being terrified of Kimmel's unbalanced audience is a key factor in Kimmel's reinstatement.

I think it's safe to infer that a lot of people complained about Disney's decision. It's a stretch to say it was just the gunman.

 

[Hazelelponi]

He wasn't fired and this again is a blank assertion that he lied on air.

Okay suspended then, and you have yourself directly quoted the lie he told which resulted in the public outrage which directly resulted in his suspension. So, not a "blank assertion".

It's a stretch to say it was just the gunman.

I didn't say only the gunman protested. Certainly a small group of protesters showed up to protest. I'm pretty sure the guy with the gun had more of an effect though.

That's how it seems to go with these "mostly peaceful" protests the left likes to throw. People die, things burn down etc. The political violence never their fault according to them - and isn't the cause of things accruing to the positive for the radical left, like a low rated personn who despises half the country for profit staying on air to continue spewing venom against hard working Americans.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Thank the Left leaning for pushing that.

FOS is still around, but certain areas are restricted as we saw facebook do so during covid and the Left wouldn't allow questioning of the covid vax.
As someone who gets vaccines, I'm 100% for vaccine choice since I trust my vaccines I get.
Apparently some don't trust theirs. Anf the LEft not allowing those who can't or don't want to, to not be able to question things and get answers is plain wrong. They censored FOS and that just showed them further as the dictatorial fascists they are.
But I digress

That being said, "the left" in the US is more "right of centre" but it's all relative to where you're standing.

Since movements like social cancelling and similar resulted in someone taking offense having precedence over the constitution .. well we all know what a body without a constitution is like, it's prone .. just prone.

Freedom of speech isn't as big a deal in Canada, but since it's part of the US culture .. it probably doesn't bode well that both sides of the equation (blue and red) are "weaponizing" the same kinds of things against this thing called freedom of speech.

I mean, I get it. You want the other side to just shut up, but ... you still gotta live in this country afterwards. There is this thing called legal precedence you know ..

 

[Pepperdoodle]

Even The Washington Post reports it as "leftist ideology".

Tuesday, Robinson’s mother told investigators that he had moved to the left politically in the past year, becoming more “pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.”

Usually by the time others notice someone's ideology changing, it's already been decided by the person before that. The murderer could have embraced that ideology well before she or they knew and he just hadn't shared it, for all she knows.
I'm glad the parents encouraged him to turn himself in.

 

[childeye 2]

Okay suspended then, and you have yourself directly quoted the lie he told which resulted in the public outrage which directly resulted in his suspension. So, not a "blank assertion".

I quoted the words Kimmel used; I didn't assert that he lied.

To me Kimmel's sentiment is that MAGA is trying to make Tyler Robinson not one of MAGA so as to blame the "left" for Kirk's murder. The context coincides with Trump's speech and Stephen Miller's speech at the funeral, because Trump blames "rhetoric" from the "Left" and Miller blames Liberal political organizations for Charlie's death.

The sentiment you see Kimmel making is a more subliminal suggestion in the wording that it's possible Tyler Robinson could be MAGA or former MAGA.

Hence your rendition points to the adverb 'desperately' as descriptive of the futility of trying to make Tyler Robinson NOT MAGA which changes the suggestion of the possibility into a definitive proclamation that Tyler is MAGA. My rendition doesn't do that. I believe Kimmel is using 'desperately' to describe the effort to blame anyone else but MAGA.

There are reports that say Tyler Robinson texts reveal why he killed Charlie Kirk, and the said reason was because Robinson felt Charlie Kirk's sentiments were hate speech.

I do not believe Kimmel lied, because I don't believe he intended to convey a definitive conviction that Robinson is MAGA. But every time a person like yourself says he's lying by saying Robinson IS MAGA, Kimmel looks like he is right, that MAGA is trying to make Robinson not their own so they can blame someone other than the misguided soul who shot the gun.

I didn't say only the gunman protested. Certainly a small group of protesters showed up to protest. I'm pretty sure the guy with the gun had more of an effect though.

I would think the guy with the gun's actions are more harmful to the cause than helpful.

That's how it seems to go with these "mostly peaceful" protests the left likes to throw. People die, things burn down etc. The political violence never their fault according to them - and isn't the cause of things accruing to the positive for the radical left, like a low rated personn who despises half the country for profit staying on air to continue spewing venom against hard working Americans.

I appreciate the discourse, but you've got it bad. "IT" being the effect of distrust upon the soul. How could anyone not be upset at others when their reasoning is based on cynicism? Like I said, the violence is more harmful to the cause, than helpful.

 

[childeye 2]

Usually by the time others notice someone's ideology changing, it's already been decided by the person before that. The murderer could have embraced that ideology well before she or they knew and he just hadn't shared it, for all she knows.
I'm glad the parents encouraged him to turn himself in.

Servus said:
Even The Washington Post reports it as "leftist ideology".
Tuesday, Robinson’s mother told investigators that he had moved to the left politically in the past year, becoming more “pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.”

I note that The Washington post does NOT report it as "leftist" ideology. It does report what Robinsons mother said, that he had moved to the left politically. I take her at her word, but I don't think it's established that he had a change in ideology per se. I think the change in him has more to do with having a relationship with a trans. I think it conflicted with the ideology he was raised in.

 

[Pepperdoodle]

Servus said:
Even The Washington Post reports it as "leftist ideology".
Tuesday, Robinson’s mother told investigators that he had moved to the left politically in the past year, becoming more “pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.”

I note that The Washington post does NOT report it as "leftist" ideology. It does report what Robinsons mother said, that he had moved to the left politically. I take her at her word, but I don't think it's established that he had a change in ideology per se. I think the change in him has more to do with having a relationship with a trans. I think it conflicted with the ideology he was raised in.

I know it's hard to accept by some that the murderer of Charlie Kirk leans Left like it or not.
Some of the Left are good with one of their own killing Kirk, but they don't want to admit he's one of their own.
Such a weak group of people they are overall.
But oh, do they love to point the finger and make sure it's known from them that whenever a Right leaner is in a similar spot of shooting/killing the person IS Right leaning, period.....but they don't accept that one of their own, Tyler leans Left and murdered Kirk.
It's fun to watch the mind games that side plays

 

[childeye 2]

I know it's hard to accept by some that the murderer of Charlie Kirk leans Left like it or not.
Some of the Left are good with one of their own killing Kirk, but they don't want to admit he's one of their own.
Such a weak group of people they are overall.
But oh, do they love to point the finger and make sure it's known from them that whenever a Right leaner is in a similar spot of shooting/killing the person IS Right leaning, period.....but they don't accept that one of their own, Tyler leans Left and murdered Kirk.
It's fun to watch the mind games that side plays

To me you're speaking about the difference between the carnal and the spiritual mind. Because for me, the sentiment expressed in the words 'carnal vanity' implies the futility of comparing oneself with others and feeling either lifted up or put down in the process. The reasoning of the carnal mind is bound to end in hypocrisy because it judges as if goodness is manifested through the carnal effort of each individual to not be bad.

It's therefore easy to introduce the false premise, often present in propaganda, that the left/right dichotomy represents two absolutes such as good/evil or true/false, or right/wrong, and therefore that either the right or the left must be responsible for Charlie Kirks murder.

This improper use of a left/right dichotomy occurs only because people don't understand that the left/right dichotomy represents two opposing SUBJECTIVE views that are both equally valid. That is to say that the LEFT/RIGHT dichotomy denotes an OBJECTIVE view existing at the center where there is agreement, fairness, balance and justice. OBJECTIVELY, a person on the right can lean left and still be to the right of center, and a person on the left can lean right and still be to the left of center.

Subsequently, the carnal mind works the ends against the middle in hypocrisy, and the spiritual mind works the ends towards the middle in loving others as oneself.

 

[BPPLEE]

To me you're speaking about the difference between the carnal and the spiritual mind. Because for me, the sentiment expressed in the words 'carnal vanity' implies the futility of comparing oneself with others and feeling either lifted up or put down in the process of a carnal based form of evaluation. The reasoning of the carnal mind is bound to end in hypocrisy because it judges as if goodness is manifested through the carnal effort to not be bad.

It's therefore easy to introduce the false premise, often present in propaganda, that either the right or the left must be responsible for Charlie kirks murder, only because people don't understand that the left/right dichotomy represents two opposing SUBJECTIVE views that are equally valid. That is to say that the LEFT/RIGHT dichotomy denotes an OBJECTIVE view existing at the center where there is agreement, fairness, and justice. OBJECTIVELY, a person on the right can lean left and still be to the right of center and a person can lean right and still be to the left of center.

So the place to be is on the fence, never taking a strong position because it might offend others.
I don't buy it