Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Love him or hate him, he's the single most powerful man in the world. The UK must play the realpolitik game and schmooze him. Unlike his predecessor Biden, he seems kindly disposed to the UK, and this should be turned to our advantage. Moreover, if we have his ear, we can influence over issues like Ukraine and Gaza." Exactly this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not about the individuals. It's about two countries expressing and asserting their relationship. Yes, there are personalities and egos involved. But the main beneficiary is the UK. Most people probably don't really understand that. Trump is not necessarily a good or upstanding person. But he is POTUS." Exactly. Uk can only gain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Love him or hate him, he's the single most powerful man in the world. The UK must play the realpolitik game and schmooze him. Unlike his predecessor Biden, he seems kindly disposed to the UK, and this should be turned to our advantage. Moreover, if we have his ear, we can influence over issues like Ukraine and Gaza." Agreed.. he is in many ways the most unpredictable unpresidential person in my lifetime to have held the office but his personality is such that tickling his ego works far better and the second invitation for a state visit was a clever idea.. The cost is peanuts.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not about the individuals. It's about two countries expressing and asserting their relationship. Yes, there are personalities and egos involved. But the main beneficiary is the UK. Most people probably don't really understand that. Trump is not necessarily a good or upstanding person. But he is POTUS." Agreed. I dislike him personally but the government doesn’t have that option. Talking to people you dislike is what adults have to do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Definitely see the advantages, as per comments already made. However, could backfire for Labour as Reform are whining about Farage being marginalised during the visit ‘despite leading in the polls’, which adds fuel to their ‘us vs the establishment’ narrative." it would be foolish to involve leaders of fringe parties in state visits, especially ones who can't be bothered to show up at work and do their job. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles." Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Talking to people you dislike is what adults have to do." The king again has made a good job of that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Promoting violence not criticising Kirk..." Nah, Trump and his cronies are doing everything possible to shut down free speech that they dislike by using financial withholdings, lawsuits and not so subtle hints of regulatory retribution. Like the FCC offical appointed by Trump putting pressure on Nexstar to indirectly get Jimmy Kimmel's show off air. All while Nexstar need FCC approval for a merger. Kimmel wasn't promoting violence. All he said was... "The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." The First Amendment my arse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... Nah, Trump and his cronies are doing everything possible to shut down free speech that they dislike by using financial withholdings, lawsuits and not so subtle hints of regulatory retribution. Like the FCC offical appointed by Trump putting pressure on Nexstar to indirectly get Jimmy Kimmel's show off air. All while Nexstar need FCC approval for a merger. Kimmel wasn't promoting violence. All he said was... "The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." The First Amendment my arse." Karen Attiah, ex Washington post is another who has fallen foul of Trumps earlier statement about restoring 'free speech' when he took the office.. It's suppression and oppression by the administration of anyone who disagrees with them.. If anyone is promoting violence then rightly so there are law's to desk with that.. Neither Kimmel or Attiah have done so.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Love him or hate him, he's the single most powerful man in the world. ." Not in my world and very probably not in the world of many of our beloved forumites! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Love him or hate him, he's the single most powerful man in the world. . Not in my world and very probably not in the world of many of our beloved forumites!" So who's your candidate then and why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... Nah, Trump and his cronies are doing everything possible to shut down free speech that they dislike by using financial withholdings, lawsuits and not so subtle hints of regulatory retribution. Like the FCC offical appointed by Trump putting pressure on Nexstar to indirectly get Jimmy Kimmel's show off air. All while Nexstar need FCC approval for a merger. Kimmel wasn't promoting violence. All he said was... "The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." The First Amendment my arse. Karen Attiah, ex Washington post is another who has fallen foul of Trumps earlier statement about restoring 'free speech' when he took the office.. It's suppression and oppression by the administration of anyone who disagrees with them.. If anyone is promoting violence then rightly so there are law's to desk with that.. Neither Kimmel or Attiah have done so.. " The statements made by Kimmel were totally untrue. The Kirk shooter’s motivations are entirely clear from his own statements made online and the evidence provided by the killer’s family. That reality is entirely at odds with what Kimmel said. Much of the US MSM has been acting as the propaganda wing of the Democrats for years to a dwindling audience. It’s not really surprising that Disney pulled the plug on him. They have probably rightly concluded they can get bigger audiences and make more money with someone else in place, as well as protecting their corporate reputation. As for Nexstar their statement seems pretty clear and fair enough: “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located. Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... Nah, Trump and his cronies are doing everything possible to shut down free speech that they dislike by using financial withholdings, lawsuits and not so subtle hints of regulatory retribution. Like the FCC offical appointed by Trump putting pressure on Nexstar to indirectly get Jimmy Kimmel's show off air. All while Nexstar need FCC approval for a merger. Kimmel wasn't promoting violence. All he said was... "The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." The First Amendment my arse. Karen Attiah, ex Washington post is another who has fallen foul of Trumps earlier statement about restoring 'free speech' when he took the office.. It's suppression and oppression by the administration of anyone who disagrees with them.. If anyone is promoting violence then rightly so there are law's to desk with that.. Neither Kimmel or Attiah have done so.. The statements made by Kimmel were totally untrue. The Kirk shooter’s motivations are entirely clear from his own statements made online and the evidence provided by the killer’s family. That reality is entirely at odds with what Kimmel said. Much of the US MSM has been acting as the propaganda wing of the Democrats for years to a dwindling audience. It’s not really surprising that Disney pulled the plug on him. They have probably rightly concluded they can get bigger audiences and make more money with someone else in place, as well as protecting their corporate reputation. As for Nexstar their statement seems pretty clear and fair enough: “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located. Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue”." Kimmel didn't promote violence.. he's been cancelled no matter what the corporate pr bs you quote .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... Nah, Trump and his cronies are doing everything possible to shut down free speech that they dislike by using financial withholdings, lawsuits and not so subtle hints of regulatory retribution. Like the FCC offical appointed by Trump putting pressure on Nexstar to indirectly get Jimmy Kimmel's show off air. All while Nexstar need FCC approval for a merger. Kimmel wasn't promoting violence. All he said was... "The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." The First Amendment my arse. Karen Attiah, ex Washington post is another who has fallen foul of Trumps earlier statement about restoring 'free speech' when he took the office.. It's suppression and oppression by the administration of anyone who disagrees with them.. If anyone is promoting violence then rightly so there are law's to desk with that.. Neither Kimmel or Attiah have done so.. The statements made by Kimmel were totally untrue. The Kirk shooter’s motivations are entirely clear from his own statements made online and the evidence provided by the killer’s family. That reality is entirely at odds with what Kimmel said. Much of the US MSM has been acting as the propaganda wing of the Democrats for years to a dwindling audience. It’s not really surprising that Disney pulled the plug on him. They have probably rightly concluded they can get bigger audiences and make more money with someone else in place, as well as protecting their corporate reputation. As for Nexstar their statement seems pretty clear and fair enough: “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located. Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue”." Where is the incitement to violence in what Kimmel said..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The statements made by Kimmel were totally untrue. The Kirk shooter’s motivations are entirely clear from his own statements made online and the evidence provided by the killer’s family. That reality is entirely at odds with what Kimmel said." Kimmel said... "The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it" He wasn't talking about what motived the killer. He was talking about what MAGA people said. And he certainly wasn't promoting violence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... " There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones." People are starting to find out that there can be consequences if they are unable to read the room, Pascal Robinson foster springs to mind. We are also seeing a shift with employers starting to make strong decisions, by removing employees who have celebrated an assassination and a loss of life, they rightly do not want their organisations represented by the types of people. For clarity I was also replying to your statement in which you said criticising kirk would lead to exile, there is no evidence that Miller said that, but there is evidence he said "promoting violence". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones. People are starting to find out that there can be consequences if they are unable to read the room, Pascal Robinson foster springs to mind. We are also seeing a shift with employers starting to make strong decisions, by removing employees who have celebrated an assassination and a loss of life, they rightly do not want their organisations represented by the types of people. For clarity I was also replying to your statement in which you said criticising kirk would lead to exile, there is no evidence that Miller said that, but there is evidence he said "promoting violence"." I think the requirement to “read a room” is an insidious concept. I intensely disliked it when the left got addicted to cancel culture and I find it equally distasteful when the right are showing the same addiction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The usual definition of freedom of speech - the freedom to say anything although encitement to violence should have consequences. The MAGA definition of freedom of speech - the freedom for me to say anything and anyone who dares to criticise what I say will face consequences." As the trump appointed chair of the FCC said in relation to Kimmel and directed at his employer.. 'we can do this the easy way or the hard way' Like a line from the Godfather.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones. People are starting to find out that there can be consequences if they are unable to read the room, Pascal Robinson foster springs to mind. We are also seeing a shift with employers starting to make strong decisions, by removing employees who have celebrated an assassination and a loss of life, they rightly do not want their organisations represented by the types of people. For clarity I was also replying to your statement in which you said criticising kirk would lead to exile, there is no evidence that Miller said that, but there is evidence he said "promoting violence". I think the requirement to “read a room” is an insidious concept. I intensely disliked it when the left got addicted to cancel culture and I find it equally distasteful when the right are showing the same addiction." Understanding the mood of the nation or even an employer is part of life. It stops people putting their foot in it. If someone ignores that mood and lets their ego take centre stage, then they have to accept the consequences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are starting to find out that there can be consequences if they are unable to read the room, Pascal Robinson foster springs to mind. We are also seeing a shift with employers starting to make strong decisions, by removing employees who have celebrated an assassination and a loss of life, they rightly do not want their organisations represented by the types of people. For clarity I was also replying to your statement in which you said criticising kirk would lead to exile, there is no evidence that Miller said that, but there is evidence he said "promoting violence". I think the requirement to “read a room” is an insidious concept. I intensely disliked it when the left got addicted to cancel culture and I find it equally distasteful when the right are showing the same addiction. Understanding the mood of the nation or even an employer is part of life. It stops people putting their foot in it. If someone ignores that mood and lets their ego take centre stage, then they have to accept the consequences. " That sounds remarkably like what the left have been saying for the past ten years but I am sure you didn’t agree then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones. People are starting to find out that there can be consequences if they are unable to read the room, Pascal Robinson foster springs to mind. We are also seeing a shift with employers starting to make strong decisions, by removing employees who have celebrated an assassination and a loss of life, they rightly do not want their organisations represented by the types of people. For clarity I was also replying to your statement in which you said criticising kirk would lead to exile, there is no evidence that Miller said that, but there is evidence he said "promoting violence"." He said quote "left calls people enemies of the republic, calls them fascists, says they’re Nazis, says they’re evil,” So calling someone a Nazi is incitement to violence..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are starting to find out that there can be consequences if they are unable to read the room, Pascal Robinson foster springs to mind. We are also seeing a shift with employers starting to make strong decisions, by removing employees who have celebrated an assassination and a loss of life, they rightly do not want their organisations represented by the types of people. For clarity I was also replying to your statement in which you said criticising kirk would lead to exile, there is no evidence that Miller said that, but there is evidence he said "promoting violence". I think the requirement to “read a room” is an insidious concept. I intensely disliked it when the left got addicted to cancel culture and I find it equally distasteful when the right are showing the same addiction. Understanding the mood of the nation or even an employer is part of life. It stops people putting their foot in it. If someone ignores that mood and lets their ego take centre stage, then they have to accept the consequences. That sounds remarkably like what the left have been saying for the past ten years but I am sure you didn’t agree then." I don’t agree with branding anyone who holds a different opinion a bigot, racist, fascist, or Nazi. Those labels have been thrown around like confetti for years, and it’s got out of hand. What we are seeing now is hateful name calling reaching a breaking point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones. People are starting to find out that there can be consequences if they are unable to read the room, Pascal Robinson foster springs to mind. We are also seeing a shift with employers starting to make strong decisions, by removing employees who have celebrated an assassination and a loss of life, they rightly do not want their organisations represented by the types of people. For clarity I was also replying to your statement in which you said criticising kirk would lead to exile, there is no evidence that Miller said that, but there is evidence he said "promoting violence". He said quote "left calls people enemies of the republic, calls them fascists, says they’re Nazis, says they’re evil,” So calling someone a Nazi is incitement to violence..?" No, but he didn't say criticising would lead to exile, you did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones. People are starting to find out that there can be consequences if they are unable to read the room, Pascal Robinson foster springs to mind. We are also seeing a shift with employers starting to make strong decisions, by removing employees who have celebrated an assassination and a loss of life, they rightly do not want their organisations represented by the types of people. For clarity I was also replying to your statement in which you said criticising kirk would lead to exile, there is no evidence that Miller said that, but there is evidence he said "promoting violence". He said quote "left calls people enemies of the republic, calls them fascists, says they’re Nazis, says they’re evil,” So calling someone a Nazi is incitement to violence..? No, but he didn't say criticising would lead to exile, you did. " His whole speech on Fox news was a rant about dismantling the left, where all the statements were thrown together. So I get it you don't want to see the intended threats and want to defend your ideology fir all its worth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People seem to be confusing two things (understandably). Freedom of expression in terms of legal consequences. Freedom of expression in terms of any other consequences. It's easy to confuse because when a government is using "other consequences", it actually looks like "legal consequences", with little judicial oversight or recourse. Hence "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences". But then you must question whether it's true freedom." Maybe in the UK, but in the US its written the constitution. We keep hearing on hear from some contributors about the US first amendment and the right to say what you like without consequences. JD Vance was going on about it earlier this year on a trip to Europe. Now it seems he doesn't want it either when the other side says nasty things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disagree. He shouldn't be indulged. Ever since he mocked a disabled reporter. I've wished him bad karma every time he hurts a weaker being. I hope it hits him soon. " that would water off a wheelchairs back to mr trump | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones. People are starting to find out that there can be consequences if they are unable to read the room, Pascal Robinson foster springs to mind. We are also seeing a shift with employers starting to make strong decisions, by removing employees who have celebrated an assassination and a loss of life, they rightly do not want their organisations represented by the types of people. For clarity I was also replying to your statement in which you said criticising kirk would lead to exile, there is no evidence that Miller said that, but there is evidence he said "promoting violence". He said quote "left calls people enemies of the republic, calls them fascists, says they’re Nazis, says they’re evil,” So calling someone a Nazi is incitement to violence..? No, but he didn't say criticising would lead to exile, you did. His whole speech on Fox news was a rant about dismantling the left, where all the statements were thrown together. So I get it you don't want to see the intended threats and want to defend your ideology fir all its worth. " You have not been accurate in what you said, I do not know if it was intentional or not, only you know that. However, Miller talked about acting against those promoting violence he did not say "exile US citizens for criticising Kirk". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones. People are starting to find out that there can be consequences if they are unable to read the room, Pascal Robinson foster springs to mind. We are also seeing a shift with employers starting to make strong decisions, by removing employees who have celebrated an assassination and a loss of life, they rightly do not want their organisations represented by the types of people. For clarity I was also replying to your statement in which you said criticising kirk would lead to exile, there is no evidence that Miller said that, but there is evidence he said "promoting violence". He said quote "left calls people enemies of the republic, calls them fascists, says they’re Nazis, says they’re evil,” So calling someone a Nazi is incitement to violence..? No, but he didn't say criticising would lead to exile, you did. His whole speech on Fox news was a rant about dismantling the left, where all the statements were thrown together. So I get it you don't want to see the intended threats and want to defend your ideology fir all its worth. You have not been accurate in what you said, I do not know if it was intentional or not, only you know that. However, Miller talked about acting against those promoting violence he did not say "exile US citizens for criticising Kirk". " You talked about reading the room but seem tto not want to read between the lines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's to say thanks for 10% tarrifs innit? " As its not an all inclusive tariff in the deal, it's actually much higher than 10% for most sectors. So it's thanks for nothing Trump. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones." what people fail to realise is peoole still have freedom of speech, no one out there has been arrested for it, whats happening is private companys are firing people becayse they dont want there companys linked to some of these peoole, enough peoole in here are always saying freedom of speech dosent meen freedom from the consequence of your speech, wana keep your job be carefull what you post on sicial media its there for ever, most jobs in this country if you read your contract usually has something in there about not bringing the firm inyo disrepute and lets be hinest who would want someone working for them who celebrates someone getting shot because someone didnt like there words, they can akways get another job carlie kirk cant get another life | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its everyone cowering to this bully, especially in the wake of the crack down of free speech going on over there in the wake of Charlie Kirks assassination. Amazing whats happening there, but after the way Starmer was questioned about free speech in the UK on his visit over there. They should have returned the favour to Trump. In the wake of his adviser Stephen Miller saying that they will exile people, even US citizens who criticised Charlie Kirk, I wonder if Trump was negotiating for us to accept the exiles. Promoting violence not criticising Kirk... There are people losing jobs because they made fun of Kirk or said they weren't too sad about his death. Don't see incitement to violence. I keep reading on these forums you going on about the erosion of freedom of speech here, but seems you will defend this at all costs. I can imagine your posts on here if Starmer talked about sending British citizens to exile. I mean the blinkers you wear are astonishing. Apparently the Trump administration have drawn a list of over 50,000 people who they are targeting to get removed from their jobs, because of social media comments. Some even for criticising Kirks political views before his death. If this isn't a witch hunt of political opponents I don't know what is. The irony is this is coming from a administration who Iis constantly telling their supporters you have to fight. But somehow the other side is the violent ones. what people fail to realise is peoole still have freedom of speech, no one out there has been arrested for it, whats happening is private companys are firing people becayse they dont want there companys linked to some of these peoole, enough peoole in here are always saying freedom of speech dosent meen freedom from the consequence of your speech, wana keep your job be carefull what you post on sicial media its there for ever, most jobs in this country if you read your contract usually has something in there about not bringing the firm inyo disrepute and lets be hinest who would want someone working for them who celebrates someone getting shot because someone didnt like there words, they can akways get another job carlie kirk cant get another life" The pressure is coming from the government. Private companies are afraid of the Mccarthyism focus coming their way. Vice President JD Vance backed the effort as well, saying that people who celebrated the assassination should be held to account. “Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” he said on Monday. US Congressman Randy Fine, of Florida, threatened to revoke the professional state licences of offenders, including lawyers, teachers and doctors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The pressure is coming from the government. Private companies are afraid of the Mccarthyism focus coming their way. " This is exactly why people should be concerned. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kimmel didn't celebrate Kirk getting shot. In the UK it would be like the head of Ofcom forcing the BBC to drop Have I got News for You because Starmer didn't like something Ian Hislop said about Labour." Kimmel made an unproven, partisan claim about the killers political leanings, it is nothing like the satire example you have twisted into your narrative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The pressure is coming from the government. Private companies are afraid of the Mccarthyism focus coming their way. This is exactly why people should be concerned." Totally agree.. It can't be looked at in an objective whataboutery manner either.. For any democracy the signs are indeed not good.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kimmel made an unproven, partisan claim about the killers political leanings, it is nothing like the satire example you have twisted into your narrative." No he didn't. Have you actually watched what was broadcast? He didn't say what the killer's leanings were, he simply pointed out that MAGA people were desperate to say he wasn't one of them and that they were using his murder to score political points. His other point about the goldfish was in response to Trump being asked about how he was coping with the shocking news of Kirk's murder and Trump talking about his ballroom instead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kimmel made an unproven, partisan claim about the killers political leanings, it is nothing like the satire example you have twisted into your narrative. No he didn't. Have you actually watched what was broadcast? He didn't say what the killer's leanings were, he simply pointed out that MAGA people were desperate to say he wasn't one of them and that they were using his murder to score political points. His other point about the goldfish was in response to Trump being asked about how he was coping with the shocking news of Kirk's murder and Trump talking about his ballroom instead. " Yes, I’ve watched it and you’ve just confirmed my point. Kimmel did make an unproven, partisan claim. He accused MAGA of scrambling to distance themselves from the killer and of exploiting Kirk’s murder for political points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, I’ve watched it and you’ve just confirmed my point. Kimmel did make an unproven, partisan claim. He accused MAGA of scrambling to distance themselves from the killer and of exploiting Kirk’s murder for political points. " And are you suggesting they haven’t exploited the murder for political points…. Because literally the first statement Trump made after the event was to blame the “radical left”! And his minions have followed his lead…. How many times have we now heard the word “war” mentioned! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"While on Fox news, host Brian Kilmeade says about homeless and mentally ill people "Or involuntary lethal injection… or something. Just kill ‘em.” Yet apparently he can keep his job. " Jesse waters on Fox News called it a war.. and said they should go out and get revenge But… Fox News is Fox News!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, I’ve watched it and you’ve just confirmed my point. Kimmel did make an unproven, partisan claim. He accused MAGA of scrambling to distance themselves from the killer and of exploiting Kirk’s murder for political points. And are you suggesting they haven’t exploited the murder for political points…. Because literally the first statement Trump made after the event was to blame the “radical left”! And his minions have followed his lead…. How many times have we now heard the word “war” mentioned! " What I’m saying is Kimmel’s comments were nothing like the Have I Got News for You example. His words were not satire, it was a partisan political take at a very sensitive time. He has every right to say what he did and nobody stopped him, and equally his employer has every right to decide whether to keep him on air or not. Bob Vylan is back tracking like mad when he chose to use his platform to celebrate Kirks death, and he did, regardless of the BS he is coming out with now. He can say what he likes too, but he should expect that some people and some event organisers wont see eye to eye with him and that will be reflected in his bookings, like Kimmel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, I’ve watched it and you’ve just confirmed my point. Kimmel did make an unproven, partisan claim. He accused MAGA of scrambling to distance themselves from the killer and of exploiting Kirk’s murder for political points." You must live in some kind of weird parallel universe where MAGA people haven't blamed the killing on the Democrats/liberals/the Left/anyone else they don't like. On language interpretations and the Brian Kilmeade “Or involuntary lethal injection or something. Just kill ‘em” comment, he doesn't seem to have even properly withdrawn it. Just saying “I apologize for that extremely callous remark. I am obviously aware that not all mentally ill, homeless people act as the perpetrator did in North Carolina, and that so many homeless people deserve our empathy and compassion.” Does this means that he still thinks some mentally ill homeless people should be given involuntary lethal injections, just not all of them? I wonder if the FCC will push for the "Fox & Friends" show to be taken down? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, I’ve watched it and you’ve just confirmed my point. Kimmel did make an unproven, partisan claim. He accused MAGA of scrambling to distance themselves from the killer and of exploiting Kirk’s murder for political points. You must live in some kind of weird parallel universe where MAGA people haven't blamed the killing on the Democrats/liberals/the Left/anyone else they don't like. On language interpretations and the Brian Kilmeade “Or involuntary lethal injection or something. Just kill ‘em” comment, he doesn't seem to have even properly withdrawn it. Just saying “I apologize for that extremely callous remark. I am obviously aware that not all mentally ill, homeless people act as the perpetrator did in North Carolina, and that so many homeless people deserve our empathy and compassion.” Does this means that he still thinks some mentally ill homeless people should be given involuntary lethal injections, just not all of them? I wonder if the FCC will push for the "Fox & Friends" show to be taken down?" Sticking to the facts of Kimmel seems more or less impossible for so many. Exaggeration isn't needed, it is playing out without it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sticking to the facts of Kimmel seems more or less impossible for so many. Exaggeration isn't needed, it is playing out without it." You started off by saying it was all about promoting violence. Now it's down to whether Kimmel saying that MAGA people blamed Democrats/liberals etc for the killing was accurate. I think your position is that the FCC was justified in threatening companies to get Kimmel off air because he claimed that the killer had certain political leanings. If so, can you go through the transcript and point out exactly where he did this. Because as far as I can see he didn't say anything about what he thought the killer's motives were. He was only talking about what MAGA people said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, I’ve watched it and you’ve just confirmed my point. Kimmel did make an unproven, partisan claim. He accused MAGA of scrambling to distance themselves from the killer and of exploiting Kirk’s murder for political points. You must live in some kind of weird parallel universe where MAGA people haven't blamed the killing on the Democrats/liberals/the Left/anyone else they don't like. On language interpretations and the Brian Kilmeade “Or involuntary lethal injection or something. Just kill ‘em” comment, he doesn't seem to have even properly withdrawn it. Just saying “I apologize for that extremely callous remark. I am obviously aware that not all mentally ill, homeless people act as the perpetrator did in North Carolina, and that so many homeless people deserve our empathy and compassion.” Does this means that he still thinks some mentally ill homeless people should be given involuntary lethal injections, just not all of them? I wonder if the FCC will push for the "Fox & Friends" show to be taken down?" FCC can’t, well wont, they only deal with broadcast free to air TV, Fox News come under cable TV…. Which is why he can go on Fox News and CNBC and make statements | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sticking to the facts of Kimmel seems more or less impossible for so many. Exaggeration isn't needed, it is playing out without it. You started off by saying it was all about promoting violence. Now it's down to whether Kimmel saying that MAGA people blamed Democrats/liberals etc for the killing was accurate. I think your position is that the FCC was justified in threatening companies to get Kimmel off air because he claimed that the killer had certain political leanings. If so, can you go through the transcript and point out exactly where he did this. Because as far as I can see he didn't say anything about what he thought the killer's motives were. He was only talking about what MAGA people said. " You are unsurprisingly inconsistent. My first point was there was no threat at all of US citizens being exiled for "criticising" Kirk, it was another misinterpretation of the facts. There was however threats to exile non US for promoting or supporting the violence in the Kirk murder. I also pointed out the Kimmel was not acting like Ian Hislop in have I got news for you, criticising Starmer. There was no satire in his comments at all. Lastly he said, quote: "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". "One of them" indicates clearly Kimmel was providing the killers political leanings, a MAGA supporter, when the information was not available. It was a partisan unproven claim, and he was suspended for doing that. I will repeat, there is no need to exaggerate, it is playing out without the need. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bob Vylan is back tracking like mad when he chose to use his platform to celebrate Kirks death ..." Bob Vylan is the name of a band, not a person. There are 2 people in the band. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think your position is that the FCC was justified in threatening companies to get Kimmel off air because he claimed that the killer had certain political leanings. If so, can you go through the transcript and point out exactly where he did this." He said "The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". There's a strong implication in there that he was indeed 'one of them'. I'm not much of a one for people reading 'dog whistles' in others' speech, but it's pretty clear to me that Kimmel was saying that the killer was a member of the MAGA Gang whilst avoiding saying it directly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"FCC can’t, well wont, they only deal with broadcast free to air TV, Fox News come under cable TV…. Which is why he can go on Fox News and CNBC and make statements" Ah, right. I didn't know that. So the FCC's leverage iisn't about network licenses (as Trump seems to be claiming) but only about individual broadcast stations and on the question of mergers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So it looks like those posters against Kimmel are interpreting "trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" as secretly meaning "trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk, who is one of them, as not being one of them". This strikes me as dishonest given that MAGA people had been claiming that the killer was a Democrat, a liberal, a radical leftist etc. " You’re making it for and against Kemmel, which is why you’re struggling with this. This is about what Kemmel said, not what randoms said about the killers political leanings 
We need to wait for this to become clearer, which ironically is what Kemmel got wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You’re making it for and against Kemmel, which is why you’re struggling with this. This is about what Kemmel said, not what randoms said about the killers political leanings" I'm responding to your and the other guy's posts and trying to get you both to look more closely at what he actually said rather than what you imagine he meant. "We need to wait for this to become clearer, which ironically is what Kemmel got wrong." Once again, Kimmel wasn't talking about the motives of the killer, he was talking about what MAGA people had already said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You’re making it for and against Kemmel, which is why you’re struggling with this. This is about what Kemmel said, not what randoms said about the killers political leanings I'm responding to your and the other guy's posts and trying to get you both to look more closely at what he actually said rather than what you imagine he meant. We need to wait for this to become clearer, which ironically is what Kemmel got wrong. Once again, Kimmel wasn't talking about the motives of the killer, he was talking about what MAGA people had already said." Tell me what you think this means: "the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". No AI your words. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell me what you think this means: "the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ". No AI your words." I think Kimmel's words mean what they say. I've gone over this several times already. You seem to want to add extra meaning to the words, that's fine. It's you opinion. On the AI thing. It seems to be something that fascinates you and I have the impression that you think that I use it, rather than my own intelligence while posting. This isn't the case. Very rarely I'll take what google spits out and judge that it's reasonable but most often I actually dig deep into stuff and track original sources. I'm in a confessional mood so I'll tell you a little about myself. I'm a semi-retired engineer/designer/researcher/musician hippy type dude. I've worked as a sound engineer, electronics engineer and software engineer and done some academic research in OO, DBMS, formal languages and such like. I didn't go to university (other than as a paid consultant) and bunked off school to go to libraries because school was too boring. Most of my money was made in two long stints as a lead games programmer. So I have some insight into what AI actually is at a deeper level than most people. It's mostly just an advertising slogan. Things like large language models do a good job of fooling people into believing that software has human like intelligence but AI is crap at doing anything original. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"FCC can’t, well wont, they only deal with broadcast free to air TV, Fox News come under cable TV…. Which is why he can go on Fox News and CNBC and make statements Ah, right. I didn't know that. So the FCC's leverage iisn't about network licenses (as Trump seems to be claiming) but only about individual broadcast stations and on the question of mergers." Sort of…… it gets “complicated”. You have “network owed affiliates “ and you have “independent owed stations” So let’s use my “old home town” of New York as an example In the big cities the actual networks will own the affiliate (CBS owns channel 2, NBC has 4, FOX has 5 , ABC has 7) … but there is more than 4 channels.. the rest are independently owned, so New York also has a channel 1,9, 11 and 13… there are more now! In smaller towns, there may not be a network owned affiliate , so the independent stations with have an agreement to show a network’s programming A company can own multiple independent television stations in different markets, they don’t have to be with the one network A company is only allowed to own so many independent stations…basically nexstar media wants to merge with techna, but it would be mean they would own more than the allowed amount, so they need the FCC to “Change the rules” Meanwhile Sinclair media is the right leaning media network who are demanding that kimmel donate to turning point…. So….FCC head says kimmel done bad and needs punishing, nexstar grovelling to FCC says they won’t show kimmel show, Sinclair then follow | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
