I want to hear and watch the words coming right out of Kimmel's own mouth regarding that assertion.
SHOW it to me.
Kimmel said that MAGA people were pointing fingers away from themselves, looking for an outsider to be the guilty party. And they were. I don't see how that is inaccurate or unfair. A large number of MAGA influencers and talking heads were screaming about the "Left" being responsible for Kirk's death. This was before there was any kind of sober weighing of the evidence. So, Kimmel was describing something that was real. As far as I can tell, that was the pretext for taking him off the air. I think it was in fact just Brendan Carr exploiting the opportunity to accomplish something his boss Trump had wanted done for a long time.
He was taken off the air because of what he said, and his employer didn't like it, it was bad for business. If he had better ratings and some humility, maybe he would have survived it.
If you were to say something similar, publicly, you would probably be suspended or fired by your employer, as would I.
He was taken off the air because of what he said, and his employer didn't like it, it was bad for business. If he had better ratings and some humility, maybe he would have survived it.
If you were to say something similar, publicly, you would probably be suspended or fired by your employer, as would I.
In the end it is business.
Yeah, if you ignore what happened, then you might say this. Ignoring what happened doesn't change what happened. It just makes you look like a brainwashed fool.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
Kimmel said that MAGA people were pointing fingers away from themselves, looking for an outsider to be the guilty party. And they were. I don't see how that is inaccurate or unfair. A large number of MAGA influencers and talking heads were screaming about the "Left" being responsible for Kirk's death. This was before there was any kind of sober weighing of the evidence. So, Kimmel was describing something that was real. As far as I can tell, that was the pretext for taking him off the air. I think it was in fact just Brendan Carr exploiting the opportunity to accomplish something his boss Trump had wanted done for a long time.
He was taken off the air because of what he said, and his employer didn't like it, it was bad for business. If he had better ratings and some humility, maybe he would have survived it.
If you were to say something similar, publicly, you would probably be suspended or fired by your employer, as would I.
In the end it is business.
Irrelevant to the FCC telling them they needed to do something or it would become an issue for them and their license.
The employer certainly has the right to fire someone. The federal government absolutely does not have the right nor authority to threaten a business on the behalf of the President's personal interests.
He was taken off the air because of what he said, and his employer didn't like it, it was bad for business. If he had better ratings and some humility, maybe he would have survived it.
If you were to say something similar, publicly, you would probably be suspended or fired by your employer, as would I.
In the end it is business.
Irrelevant to the FCC telling them they needed to do something or it would become an issue for them and their license.
The employer certainly has the right to fire someone. The federal government absolutely does not have the right nor authority to threaten a business on the behalf of the President's personal interests.
Ok Karen.
Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way.
— Gadianton
a bro can use whatever label he wants, I suppose, for the idea of quantification as described by Mr. W. O. Quine in his classic text Methods of Logic.
Let me provide an example of when an employer doesn't have the right to fire an employee for saying stupid crap about the company. This example will demonstrate why the question is far, far from adequate to address any situation.
Suppose there is a non-white non-straight non-believing executive at a company who has made advances on a low-ranking white Christian Republican employee in customer support, who has turned down the advances numerous times. Suppose this angers the executive, who takes their concern with the support rep to the support rep's boss, who is told to "do something about this", the ask was for just one date.
So one day, after a lot of difficult phone calls with customers, the support rep goes home, showers, and before going to bed, lets out a rant and says a lot of "stupid crap" about the customers. What the support rep doesn't know, is that while they were on the phone that day working, the boss had broken into their home and bugged it. He takes the recording to the IT boss who finds away to splice it into a backed-up monitored conversation.
The employee is then called into the boss's office and fired for "saying stupid crap about their customers" directly to a customer.
a bro can use whatever label he wants, I suppose, for the idea of quantification as described by Mr. W. O. Quine in his classic text Methods of Logic.
Let me provide an example of when an employer doesn't have the right to fire an employee for saying stupid crap about the company. This example will demonstrate why the question is far, far from adequate to address any situation.
Suppose there is a non-white non-straight non-believing executive at a company who has made advances on a low-ranking white Christian Republican employee in customer support, who has turned down the advances numerous times. Suppose this angers the executive, who takes their concern with the support rep to the support rep's boss, who is told to "do something about this", the ask was for just one date.
So one day, after a lot of difficult phone calls with customers, the support rep goes home, showers, and before going to bed, lets out a rant and says a lot of "stupid crap" about the customers. What the support rep doesn't know, is that while they were on the phone that day working, the boss had broken into their home and bugged it. He takes the recording to the IT boss who finds away to splice it into a backed-up monitored conversation.
The employee is then called into the boss's office and fired for "saying stupid crap about their customers" directly to a customer.
Oh boy. Really Gadianton?
Really?
Supreme Court doesn’t protect criminal activity? Oh my gosh.
Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way.
— Gadianton
He was taken off the air because of what he said, and his employer didn't like it, it was bad for business. If he had better ratings and some humility, maybe he would have survived it.
If you were to say something similar, publicly, you would probably be suspended or fired by your employer, as would I.
In the end it is business.
Yeah, if you ignore what happened, then you might say this. Ignoring what happened doesn't change what happened. It just makes you look like a brainwashed fool.
Lol, we can certainly test it. Say how you really feel about Kirk openly here and we can send it to [snip] and see how they react. He said something insensitive and stupid and he was suspended. There is a long list of others that have done the same and equally paid a price. From Jimmy the Greek, Bill Maher to Rosanne, off the top of my head.
We have freedom of speech, however there are consequences to our speech.
He was taken off the air because of what he said, and his employer didn't like it, it was bad for business. If he had better ratings and some humility, maybe he would have survived it.
He was taken off the air because of what he said, and his employer didn't like it, it was bad for business. If he had better ratings and some humility, maybe he would have survived it.
Kimmel's show returns to ABC tomorrow.
Sorta. Check Sinclair.
Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way.
— Gadianton
