Page #1
Pages: #1 #2
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.Freedom of speech (or so they say) 2.Lets have the censoring taken off the words please Admin 3.Racist 4.2021 UK CENSUS 5.Why do gay men harass straight guys after saying I'm straight Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
in a country that allows shows like this.".
If you don't agree with that, you can suck my anus and eat my shit!
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there I did not speak out
Because I was not me
(By that point, I had become a vegetable, ready to do whatever they ordered, I had no thinking facilities left, no conscience, no personality, no emotions, and when they came for me I knew they were right, they had to exterminate me because the dear leader wished that it be so.)
because they do whatever they are told, they have no emotions ,or anything else mentioned.
I will probably blow ananas's mind when i type this but I think in the case of these folks talking the shit they talk, people should just stop watching them if they don't agree and then the viewership will dictate who goes and who stays. I didn't watch either 1 of them as i felt like they were just liberal mouth pieces with warped brains.
don't watch by choice, and frankly there will just be another liberal mouth piece take their place so nothing gained.
Ananas2xLekker writes I understand his English, even though his native language is Dutch. When I read what you write, even though English is your mother tongue, then more often than not I don't understand what you meant to write, not because of lack of information from my side, but because of lack of syntactical coherence in your writing.
2. The above is not meant to be an offence, but I truly don't have a clue of what you're saying above other than isolated excerpts from your sentences.
3. It seems that your answer, whatever it meant to say, was irrelevant to whatever I wrote. You do this kind of thing all the time. You don't even address the issue. You just sidetrack, divert and give irrelevant replies.
4. In fact, I shouldn't use the word "reply" because what I wrote wasn't addressed to you and, in fact, had nothing to do with you. All I was presenting was the eventually fate of people who don't speak up or act.
5. I can't be a democrat, in the US sense, because I've nothing to do with the US and also because that party is corrupt too. I would never be anything or belong to any organisation, religion, party, affiliation. I'm an independent human being.
6. I think I can make sense of what you are trying to say in the latter part of your diatribe: if someone speaks and says something uncomfortable to some others then those people should stop listening and just go away. There's freedom of speech, which is a basic human right, and so long as it's exercised without threat or violence, it should be treated as such: as talk that if you don't agree with you talk back, if you wish, without violence, or walk away. I'm in full agreement (provided I understand what you tried to say).
To blow my mind, you first need to say something profound and unexpected.
"I think in the case of these folks talking the shit they talk, people should just stop watching them"?
I translate that to: "people should stop watching shit"
Yes, 'shit' is bad for the mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the problem though: That 'shit' satisfies primitive feeling of fear, tribalism, anger, the need for control, jealousy, greed and resentment, while playing on religious dogmas, scientific ignorance and distrust, turning people against progress in social freedom, to make people fear progress more, and then direct that fear towards minorities, to blame them for the failures of civilization.
They use outrage as entertainment, while using the profit based motives behind the algorithms of social media, to get eyeballs on their content.
People are watching that 'shit', because it's the only thing they get shoveled right in their gob. And that means that the 'shit' can infect their thought processes so much, that shit tastes great to them. That's what happened to you. You love the lies that you get fed, because it satisfies your primitive urges. They made you hate whole groups of people. Now they can do violence and act out horrible atrocities on people, by just telling you it's 'those people' that you hate. That's what leopodij was addressing.
You like that 'shit' so much now, that you dislike anything that contradicts it. They have told you that not hating anyone is 'woke', which is bad, and hating people is common sense. Now you consume shit by choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"if they don't agree and then the viewership will dictate who goes and who stays"
Are you telling me that hate and bigotry are not popular?
"I didn't watch either 1 of them as i felt like they were just liberal mouth pieces with warped brains."
Who are you talking about?
"don't watch by choice"
Don't we all? Who is forcing anyone to watch anything against their choice?
"and frankly there will just be another liberal mouth piece take their place so nothing gained."
Again, who are you talking about?
My mind is not blown. In a cartoon world, there would be a big blinking question-mark above my head. What were you even trying to say?
Were you trying to say that everyone is free to say whatever they want in your country and that it's just pure views that result in their promotion or decline?
If you say that, I would ask you to think again. Is that consistent with reality?
liberal mouth pieces, colbert and kimmel. i never could stand to watch them, although i do understand the basics of freedom of speech being applied here and it being violated, their absence from the tv screen is NO loss
leo, english ,even when i was in college, was a weak subject, and since i had interest in the trades and not interacting with people on a personal level i didn't concern myself with getting a A in class.
why they are canceled and not your president doing his best to destroy them?
You know you're lying to protect your side. You hate freedom of speech.
In any case, that's not what leopoldij was addressing. Me neither.
I guess you understand that it's a horrible sign of rising authoritarianism.
Why else would you have brought it up.
In any case, canceling Colbert and Kimmel has worked out for you.
Jon Stewart of The Daily Show is shitting his pants and changed his tune completely. Congratulations! I'm sure you will like him this way:
only registered users can see external links
I noticed that lots and lots of maga people, including your supreme leader, can't talk properly. Which is incredible. It's like saying they can't use their hands properly .
I don't watch any of those talk shows. I did watch some hodge twin vids for a while but got tired of their constant ranting about the same thing over and over. DO something about the issue and quit jaw jacking about it.
Trump is a pathetic little snowflake for coercing channels to cancel comedians who criticize him. That's real cancel culture. No Democratic president has ever done that. But you set the precedent now. Don't bitch when the next Democratic president cancels all your vile propagandists. Trump's time left on this earth is limited.
Trump is a fake without looking fake. That is his only skill, but he is a master at it, fooling lots of people who don't share your hateful ideology. You don't have anyone who can fill his shoes, and sell your ideology like he can. Then it's over.
Remember when you guys said "Comedy is legal again"? That didn't age well.
I will admit, about 14 years ago when involved in a situation with the US government, I had to use a office software to help with spelling on documents and such because it was very important that i get things as correct as I could but just simple conversation, perfect english is almost a burden, if you were among my family and many other folks in this part of the country, they would immediately assume you were a snobbish person because of the lack of personality in your speech.
Read again what I wrote.
the stupid ratings lie (poorly). You have no mind of your own.
Trump weaponized the FCC, by appointing Brendan Carr, who is blocking all deals from the parent companies of those Talkshow hosts, until they fire them.
And the greedy cowardly owners of those parent companies bow to him.
It's an attack on free speech. Trump learned it from his dictator friend.
where is your outrage? No where as it is fake because you hate Trump,
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
The FCC is responsible for fining media companies or pulling their license.
The FCC should be independent, but is now controlled by a Trump stooge.
Please explain why Disney would be fined or lose there license,
when Trump had nothing to do with it. What did they do?
When did the government EVER sensor any right-winger, and they
DIDN'T CLEARLY broke the law?
Your free speech is protected FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
When lefty protesters block a right-winger from speaking,
that's not a violation of free speech, that's THEIR free speech.
censoring speech?
You are flipping from topic to topic.
Show that 'commie-socialist-liberals' are censoring speech.
Protests that go to far are not the same as censoring speech.
Maybe that is logical to you, but it's just messy thinking.
"You can’t blame trump or the FCC for Kimmel being ousted,
it was Disney not wanting to be fined or lose there license"
"I don’t see happening because of the first amendment rights"
Trump is CLEARLY violating those first amendment rights.
I don't care if you care about Disney or not.
You should care about your first amendment,
and that your president is destroying it.
Do you want to be North Korea, with only 'state approved media'?
This is what right-wingers always fearmonger about lefties doing,
but for everything they accuse the left of, they end up doing it themselves.
All this free speech nonsense is hilarious, people for Kimmel making out he's some sort of martyr, democrats just blame trump for everything and use him as a scapegoat..
Kimmel only got suspended anyway,he didn't loose anything.
And I'm not a Trump fan .... presidents are elected puppets,owned by corporations,every administration since Reagan has fucked with media to lie to the people,and it will continue.
Didn't Trump get banned from social media? And didn't all the late night chat shows show glee that trump got banned? I'm pretty sure Kimmel posted on social media about trump getting banned.
And which people pushed social media to ban trump?
The problem is that they were bending the knee to Trump.
The press has the same First Amendment protection as private people.
Jimmy Kimmel did not violate ANY legal guidelines enforced by the FCC.
This was just Trump pressuring a company to silence criticism,
trough the pawn he put in charge of the FCC.
These are the limits on free speech:
- Incitement to imminent lawless action (e.g., calling for violence right now).
- True threats (serious expressions of intent to harm someone).
- Obscenity (narrowly defined, not just “offensive” content).
- Defamation (false statements that harm reputation).
- Fraud (knowingly false claims to cheat people).
- Child exploitation material (entirely excluded).
- Certain national security exceptions (e.g., classified info leaks).
Kimmel didn't break ANY of them.
Even if Kimmel did defame Trump, understand that the President (and other public officials) are protected LESS from defamation claims than ordinary private citizens.
This comes from the Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).
Trump would have to PROVE IN COURT all three terms and conditions:
1) The statement was false.
2) It harmed their reputation.
3) It was made with “actual malice” → meaning the speaker knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
You're showing that you don't understand anything about free speech laws.
It's not that difficult to understand: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
It is the FIRST Amendment, because your founding fathers understood
that criticizing the government is one of the most important protections
of democracy.
James Madison (author of the First Amendment), 1799: “The right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1787: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Of course they only mentioned newspapers, because they didn't have TV yet.
Trump got banned from social media, for CLEARLY violating the Terms of Service. That's actually NOT protected by Freedom of Speech, because that's a private company setting limits on private people's speech.
Trump was banned for breaking TOS rules such as:
- Glorification or incitement of violence (tweets interpreted as encouraging the Jan. 6 attack).
- Misinformation about elections (repeated false claims of fraud, undermining trust in democratic processes).
- Harmful content policies (content likely to inspire harm offline).
- Civic integrity rules (attempts to interfere with or delegitimize elections).
His Tweets even violated free speech rules.
Trump pressuring ABC and Disney to silence Kimmel, that is the government cracking down on free speech. Not because he broke the limits of free speech laws, but because he criticizes Trump, which is by definition protected speech.
If you want full free speech on social media, you should not let private companies control your speech, but you should nationalize them all.
In any case, it's all moot now, because the people showed that Disney survives by the consent of their customers and not by the consent of the government. People massively unsubscribed their Disney+, devaluing the company by about $4 billion. This would have been just the start, because the website for unsubscribing was offline. It wasn't just Americans either.
Right-wingers are not the only people who can put pressure on a company by banning their products.
Yes, Ronald Reagan was the first to take a big step in legalizing bribery. Every Republican after him eroded the idea of "one person, one vote" a bit more. Now you have the most corrupt government in the history of your country. He is literally doing 50 Watergates per day.
Private citizens have free speech.
The press have free speech when it's a journalist not a chat show host...
Democrats put pressure on social media to ban Trump....
So Trump broke the terms and conditions of usage of social media services is the same as what ABC did suspending Kimmel.
The press have free speech when it's a journalist TRUE
not a chat show host... FALSE
EVERYONE HAS FREE SPEECH, even the president, BUT because
he has the power of the government, which has the most responsibility
in protecting speech, he has the biggest burden of proof.
The Supreme Court has made clear several times that individuals and institutions alike enjoy the same First Amendment protections.
Example: In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the Court noted that “freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right which is not confined to newspapers and periodicals.”
True, Democrats put pressure on social media to ban Trump. Why?
Because Trump doesn't have more rights than YOU to violate the TOS
of any social media company. That would be illegitimate support of a politician, AKA CORRUPTION.
Jimmy Kimmel did NOT violate any TOS rules. He has CONTRACT rules, which he DIDN'T break at all. ABC and Disney did NOT even claim that he broke any contract rules. Kimmel did also not violate any FCC rules.
ABC/Disney just bent their knees to Trump's abuse of the FCC.
They want their big merger and the FCC boss was blocking it, as pressure.
Why is this so hard to understand? It's all out in the open.
[FCC rules are based on free speech limits (not TOS). However the Supreme Court has upheld that broadcast media can be subject to greater restrictions than print or internet speech (see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 1978, the “seven dirty words” case).
FCC rules prohibit obscene content at all times, and indecent/profane content between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are most likely to be watching.]
Jimmy Kimmel is on TV after 10 PM, so unless he was 'obscene', he didn't break any FCC rules, on top of the limits on free speech. He didn't say any of the seven dirty words.
In any case, what do you think that Kimmel said, literally, word for word, that you think is a violation of FCC rules or the legal limits on free speech?
Did you even go see what he said?
If someone is on a contract they can be fired for anything, private citizens have free speech,use social media you still have to follow the law,that why there's libel laws.....was Kimmel speaking as a private citizen,no he wasn't,he was speaking as an employee of ABC,which is a network,under FCC guidelines...so ABC felt the need to suspend him,not fire him, so he still had his free speech..
Did he break the law ? No ,but he probably pushed his limits in his contract....see the difference? Of course you can...
only registered users can see external links
"We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there is gonna be additional work for the TCC ahead."
ABC and Disney did not decide to fire Kimmel (yet), but Trump and Brandan Carr are forcing them to do that. And they are now pushing other media companies to take Kimmel off the air.
only registered users can see external links
Of course the FCC boss says that it's all because Jimmy Kimmel is lying about the murderer of Charlie Kirk.
YOU TELL ME what Kimmel lied about.
You tell me HOW he 'pushed his limits in his contract'.
"probably" isn't going to cut it.
Why do you say that, when ABC and Disney are NOT?
This is their statement: “Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation … It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive. We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”
Jimmy Kimmel is being "ill-timed and thus insensitive"?
Right-wing media is openly calling for VENGEANCE.
Should lefties just bow down and take it?
Fuck that, lefties have free speech too.
No Democrat ever took action against Charlie Kirk.
Charlie was free to do whatever hateful propaganda he wanted.
TELL ME that you didn't hear ALL right-wing 'news' accuse
'transgender terrorists', lefties and liberals, before they even had
a suspect. Is the FCC pressuring ANY of the right-wing channels
to take back their accusations or to suspend any of their hosts?
So, now they decided to put him back on. Why is the FCC still involved?
Why are TV-station blocking Kimmel, if this was just a contract thing?
You say you don't like Trump, but can you be OBJECTIVE?
Of course Trump is a thin skinned man baby...I don't dispute that...
You're just not listening...
You just keep repeating the same thing I have said...
But with a bit of lefty spin....
I said corporations don't give a shit about free speech,they care about profits....
If you believe in free speech for Kimmel you have to have it for everyone else don't you? See the issue? Misinformation is the problem....so if someone says something that can be disputed, does not matter whether it is true or not does it?
Because they have free speech..
American TV is affiliated,so TV providers can put what they want on their own stations....they were the ones that didn't want to air Kimmel, ABC suspended him after that...
If you think Charlie Kirk was spreading hateful propaganda,you don't know as much as you think you do....
Charlie lost his life for free speech, Kimmel got suspended for it,big fucking difference... doesn't matter who killed him....
If he was such a hateful guy,why has Dave Rubin been saying what a kind guy Charlie was ? Dave Rubin is a gay man with a popular podcast....if Charlie hated people of colour why did have so many people of colour at his events?
If the democrats are all about free speech now,why did so many colleges try to ban Charlie after lefty nut jobs threw tantrums...
Can you be objective?
"I said corporations don't give a shit about free speech,they care about profits...."
You ignore that other companies, that are not involved, are banning Kimmel. What profit incentive do they have? Did they put on another show with higher ratings in his time slot?
I know your TV-stations are 'affiliated', but accepting the status quo
is not the same as supporting free speech. At what point should the people not accept that a few big companies are having so much control over their lives?
I DO support free speech for EVERYONE, as long as they obey
the law. Misinformation is not against the law. It is a problem,
but we cannot have a 'Ministry of Truth'. No government entity
can ever be trusted to decide what's true. That's the people's job.
I wish they were better at it though.
Lying is damaging, but trying to crack down on lying is more damaging.
I have seen many full debates of Charlie Kirk, to be able to make an assessment of his opinions, truthfulness and strategy. Have you?
Dave Rubin is very similar to Charlie Kirk. He started out as a liberal, but that was too difficult and didn't pay enough for him. Then he turned to the right. It's much easier and the money comes flowing in by the millions. He is a gay man, attacking gay rights, for money. There are even transgenders who take right-wing money.
Don't you even see what you're doing? The government cracking down on free speech is not the same as a college not providing a speaker with a platform, which is not even true. No leadership of a college ever denied Charlie Kirk. STUDENTS used THEIR free speech to try to get him banned, but that never resulted in an official ban of Charlie Kirk. When students then protest or boycott his event, that's THEIR free speech to do so. But no, those are just "tantrums". The disconnect
is staggering.
Why do you assume that I call Kirk hateful for just racism?
Charlie Kirk was also speaking out against women's rights.
Are you saying that women should not attend his debates for that?
Maybe they are there to see him lose. He wasn't successful for his skill.
I call him hateful, because he basically spoke out against the value:
"one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
How many times have you recited that? Do you understand it at all?
Post the Kirk points that you disagree with,in context within the whole debate that he has with the people,not just the sound bites parroted across social media and left wing media outlets...
And you're really assuming a lot about people with how you comment on them..
Have you ever thought that people(Rubin) can change their minds about something?maybe when people see how batshit crazy some ideas are ,they think they are not that way of thinking anymore...
A crackdown on free speech is a crack down on free speech, doesn't matter if it's a college or a government does it...
And you think that because someone is gay or trans that they automatically have to be left leaning.... that's funny....
We are talking about Kimmel getting silenced by the FCC, which is controlled by Trump. It's 100% out in the open. It's not companies who don't care about free speech, it's your president who cannot handle legitimate critique, while he is constantly spewing hatred
and lies against Democrats.
"Post the Kirk points that you disagree with,in context within the whole debate that he has with the people"
Why? What is that going to prove for you?
I can give you the subjects on which I disagree massively with him:
- LGBTQ+ / Gender Identity
- Abortion
- "Christian Values"
- Free Speech in academia / Culture War
- Race, Civil Rights, and Immigration
- Government & Economics
- Foreign Policy / “America First”
He supports the most extreme anti-liberty, anti-equality opinions on all of them.
Do you agree with my assessment of that? Or is that based on sound bites parroted across social media and left wing media outlets, and he's actually very freedom supporting on those issues?
Funny, how when people "change their minds about something" in that way, they end up parroting all the basic talking points. And instead of honestly engaging in debate, where you are reacting to what people say and answering questions, they act like narrative spewing robots.
The first amendment is specifically written to protect democracy,
from an authoritarian government. I also think that when billionaires are controlling everything, protecting speech from their meddling becomes increasingly important. Your government is becoming weaker and your wealthy are becoming ever more powerful. At some point that shift is past the tipping point. What should speech be protected against then?
You are the one who provided black people as an example of Charlie Kirk not being a racist first. I didn't say they were left or right, their political identity doesn't matter, when they make millions from professing political opinions. The times are upon us that they should consider SELF PRESERVATION instead of what political 'opinions' pay them the most. There were 932 anti-LGBTQ incidents since May 2024, in your country. That's ALL Trump inspired right-wing violence, and they ain't asking for political 'opinions' before they attack.
Am I saying that no black person, no gay person, no trans person, can ever honestly have very right-wing opinions? Of course not, stupid people exist, self-hating people exist, selfish people exist.
I'm sure that there were some Nazi Jews, in Germany, up to 1942ish.
If you only disagree with him without showing the videos or comments,what can I actually disagree/agree with ?
You did point out Dave Rubin attacking gay rights for money....how does that work when he his gay?
what did he say ?got proof of it,if not I can dismiss anything you say without proof too....see how it works?
I'm not in the habit of saving links on every debate I watched with him in it.
How does that work? You say that gays don't have the same rights and hope that other people will protect your rights for you, while raking in the money.
You can find those videos easy yourself. Ask Grok or ChatGPT,
if you cannot find them yourself. He isn't as outspoken anti-gay as MAGA, but he's not supporting the same rights either. Why would you not do that, if you're gay? Having rights is horrible or something?
Why would I go and ask grok or chat gpt about anything? It's full of propaganda....
I didn't say gays don't have the same rights...
I asked where Dave Rubin said stuff against gay rights for money, that's what you posted....
"Dave Rubin is very similar to Charlie Kirk. He started out as a liberal, but that was too difficult and didn't pay enough for him. Then he turned to the right. It's much easier and the money comes flowing in by the millions. He is a gay man, attacking gay rights, for money. There are even transgenders who take right-wing money."
So you are for gay rights, transgender rights,but only if they are lefty people and not right wing then.
If you're not going to show proof of what you actually disagree with in regards to Charlie Kirk I don't know what you expect me to say......
You can throw accusations at people,but at least show some proof,you had no problem showing the proof for Jimmy Kimmel did you ?
Here's a little thing for you....
Google just admitted that it censored content for the Biden administration...
Who is for free speech hey!!!! It's an illusion...
only registered users can see external links
Dave Rubin is on the same political side. The fact that he's gay is not making him a objective arbiter of Charlie Kirk's character. That's because his job is dependent on following most of the party line, related to gay rights. There is only one exception, he supports same-sex marriage. It would be very strange if he didn't, because he's married with another gay man, producer David Janet. On all other anti-LGTBQ policies that Republicans have put forth, since he 'turned right-wing', he has been the 'voice of reason' to support them. Here is how he does it: He thinks of the most easily defensible consequence of the policy and then argues for it. He completely ignores more damaging consequences. That's called sanewashing. That's the job he was hired to do.
Examples:
- Rubin has said all states should enact laws similar to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill. It is limiting discussion in schools. It's anti-acceptance law.
- Disapproval of forcing religious individuals/businesses to act against religious beliefs, even in LGBT cases, which is legalizing discrimination.
- He has spoken out against rainbow logos for Pride Month, saying they can backfire by making “good people prejudiced against gay people.”. The rainbow is actually a religious symbol. It is what Noah saw after the great flood, God places a rainbow in the sky as a symbol of His covenant with Noah and all living creatures, promising never to destroy the earth with a flood again. A sign that bad times are behind us.
- Supporting Trans movement & drag performance restrictions, saying that the “trans movement” is more anti-gay (in some sense) than other groups. He has defended some Republican policies such as banning drag performances or restricting “sexualized shows” for children.
- Supporting limiting what teachers can teach children about sexuality/gender. It's anti-acceptance law.
Those gay rights are for everyone, from the left to the right.
If you are aware of the opinions that Charlie Kirk has been supporting, why do you need proof of me disagreeing with it? Are you not aware that I'm on the other end of the political spectrum? Do I ask you for proof that you disagree with me? You coming back here to argue against my opinions is proof enough for me.
It's a very simple and basic disagreement. Charlie Kirk thinks that the opinions of white, straight, conservative, right-wing, Christian men should dominate the politics of your country, making women, non-white people, non-Christian people, non-straight people, progressive people, subservient to them. That is anti-democratic, because it's a small minority controlling everyone else. That's also in fact anti-American, because America was founded on the values of 'liberty and justice for all'.
Charlie Kirk is supporting his ideas in literally ALL his debates and talks. If you cannot see that, I don't know what to tell you. You must have not seen even a minute of him talking. I must have seen several hours in total.
His Jubilee appearance is a good example:
only registered users can see external links
I will provide evidence of Charlie Kirk using dishonest debating tactics. There are several people who can do that better than me, so here are a few links:
How NOT to debate - Exactly How Charlie Kirk got SCHOOLED by a Cambridge Student
only registered users can see external links
Feminist SPANKS Charlie Kirk With This 1 Ancient Trick (an honest one)
only registered users can see external links
Charlie Kirk’s Debate Was a Masterclass in Logical Fallacies (short)
only registered users can see external links
Charlie Kirk Debates College Students | Logical Fallacy Bingo
only registered users can see external links
Free Speech is not an illusion, free speech has LIMITS.
That's the same for all freedoms. If my freedom very negatively affects your freedom, that is going too far.
"Yes, but if it had been just a merger without any oversight from the Feds, Mr Kimmel would not have been suspended. You know it, I know it, and a good chunk of the public knows it. There are many actors in this story and you just want to stop the story on the bottom rung."
That is what I am referring too.....what are you trying to say?Break it down for me....
"Private citizens are allowed free speech,if you work for a company you understand a contract,if you're a network TV station you need to follow legal guidelines enforced by the FCC, Kimmel has free speech,but not when he is employed by a company..... Kimmel put up disputed claims so he got told off.
All this free speech nonsense is hilarious, people for Kimmel making out he's some sort of martyr,"
However, I can see that you are either pulling my chain or are too obtuse to get it.
I asked for you to breakdown your reply....cuz I don't understand what you are on about....if you think I am being obtuse for that, well you know, you're entitled to your opinion..
New Comment Go to top