He probably will apologize, along with thanking all those who showed him support. Then he'll get serious about the implications of what happened, but then absolve ABC and Disney in some way, they do pay his salary, then he'll push the limits of telling bad taste Trump jokes to prove the company is not bowing to the wannabe authoritarian.
Probably because he was fixing to sue ABC for about a zillion dollars. Also, there are some industry people promising not to work with ABC/Disney ever again.
“This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.
I know the world is bruised and bleeding, and though it is important not to ignore its pain, it is also critical to refuse to succumb to its malevolence. Like failure, chaos contains information that can lead to knowledge — even wisdom. Like art.”
I've seen reports of $3.8B in losses, but if you deep dive that it's small news sites talking about social media reports. Not so trustworthy. I think this is more about their own talent rebelling than anything else. The trailer for The Mandalorian and Grogu trailer just dropped today. How much money would Disney lose just on that movie if the talent behind it decided not to do the press tour?
Exposing one's bigotry by calling one of the former Presidents advisors the progeny of the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes because she happened to be black is very different than stating a fact as Kimmel did. Anyone with more than half a brain could see that the "MAGA gang" was, in fact, spending all their time after the murder of Kirk trying to tie it to "the left" which is basically what Kimmel said. He said that the "MAGA gang" were "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" which they were.
So, in the first case, Barr said something that was untrue and extremely overtly bigoted while Kimmell said something that was completely true but made the "MAGA gang" angry.
The other big difference was that it appears that the media companies who have a proposal they want approved by the FCC that is controlled by the Trump administration listened to the Trump official who threatened them to remove Kimmel and they complied. That is WAY different than the Barr cancelation. That's not just walking the line on the edge of authoritarianism, that's throwing off the towel and jumping right in.
As for the attempt at what-about-ism, or Kimmel's comments that, whoever put that meme together, thinks are hypocritical, I don't recall Kimmel ever saying that his company did not have the right to cancel any of their shows including his. What Barr said was indeed vile, what Kimmel said was literally true.
I haven't seen anyone prove any different. Were the MAGA gang trying to prove it was the "left" who killed Kirk? Of course. By definition, does that not mean they were trying to prove it was not MAGA? So that line of Kimmel's joke was factually correct. Were the MAGA gang trying to win political points by smearing the "left" with the murder? Of course they were. So, second part of the joke was accurate. Conclusion? As I said, what Kimmel said was literally true.
They are no different from the fake cries of 'communism' or its far more evil twin 'socialism'.
That's a fascinating tangent, as it just so clearly illustrates the ignorance necessary for extremism.
On one hand you have people who routinely call Barack Obama a socialist, when in many ways he was more conservative than Reagan.
On the other, you have people who try to tell us how public libraries and schools are great examples of how wonderful socialism can be, when there isn't anything remotely socialist about them.
On an inflation adjusted basis, TEFRA has been described as the largest tax increase in US history. It raised taxes by almost 1% of GDP. Then we had amnesty for illegal aliens, sweeping employee rights legislation including healthcare reform, massive increases in govt spending to fuel economic growth. Reagan's actions were classic Keynesian.
Conversely, Obama was all about trickle down. Trillions going to banks and corporations, explosive income inequality, while the American Taxpayer Relief Act extended tax cuts from previous Republican administration. Not to mention kids in cages and over 3 million deportations.
In 2009, very few of us would have objected to Obama nationalizing the banking industry. We were both sick and tired of those fuckers losing all our money and crippling our economy.... again. But he didn't do that. Instead, we gave them trillions of dollars.
He also signed the Affordable Care Act, blasting health insurer and drugmaker profits through the roof.
inflation adjusted basis, TEFRA has been described as the largest tax increase in US history. It raised taxes by almost 1% of GDP. Then we had amnesty for illegal aliens, sweeping employee rights legislation including healthcare reform, massive increases in govt spending to fuel economic growth. Reagan's actions were classic Keynesian.
Let's remember, Reagan always had a Democratic Congres, so he never had the freedom of action Obama did:
(1) TEFRA came after he passed the largest tax cut in history and combined, the two tax bills dramatically lowered the tax burden.
(2) Amnesty was in a bill passed by Congress and was considered a trade for security that Democrats subsequently reneged on.
(3) Spending increases were primarily defense and entitlement mandated. As entitlements and interest payments are non-discretionary, it's hard to code any of that as "liberal" I don't remember any liberals being happy with increased defense spending, do you?
(4) You first point about TEFRA directly contradicts your claims that Reagan's actions were classic Keynesian.
Conversely, Obama was all about trickle down
The data says otherwise. Obama and his party passed a massive federal stimulus, which is actually classic Keynesian. Defense spending declined and discretionary spending skyrocketed, highlighted by the massive expansion in Medicaid, which is incredibly "liberal coded"
illions going to banks and corporations
I don't think that's in any sense of the word more conservative. The conservative approach would be to allow failing businesses to fail. Intervention and bailouts are not free market solutions to problem.
while the American Taxpayer Relief Act extended tax cuts from previous Republican administration
Obama raised them. ATRA didn't raise taxes on everyone, he kept most the same, but he did on high earners. Reagan massively cut taxes, a big difference.
ot to mention kids in cages and over 3 million deportations
I don't know how "kids in cages" is conservative, but Obama issued an amnesty by executive order, even after claiming it was unconstitutional to do so. There was no compromise with Congress, just Obama ordering an amnesty on his own accord.
e also signed the Affordable Care Act,
I don't think there's any version of conservative that is compatible with Obama's ACA and the massive increase in regulation and spending it required
Reagan is without question the best president of my lifetime, in no small part for some of the reasons you describe.
Amnesty was in a bill passed by Congress and was considered a trade for security that Democrats subsequently reneged on.
Amnesty was the pragmatic solution. We added millions of legal taxpayers overnight.
Spending increases were primarily defense and entitlement mandated. As entitlements and interest payments are non-discretionary, it's hard to code any of that as "liberal" I don't remember any liberals being happy with increased defense spending, do you?
I don't remember any liberals being happy with increased defense spending, do you?
I'm not talking about them being "happy". The great hallmark of American liberalism is that it never makes anybody happy. It simply makes it so they don't have to be miserable alone.
You first point about TEFRA directly contradicts your claims that Reagan's actions were classic Keynesian.
Keynesian economics is about government managing the economy centrally through increased spending and taxation. Reagan did both.
Obama and his party passed a massive federal stimulus, which is actually classic Keynesian.
And Reagan also busted the Air Traffic Controllers strike. Nobody sane is 100% one way or the other. Operative word being "sane".
The conservative approach would be to allow failing businesses to fail.
The ones he could allow to fail, he did. Remember GM? But the term "too big to fail" is not just a saying. Bank of America, Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, AIG and several others were actually too big to let them fail. The original plan to bail them out was devised under W, and Obama stuck to the script. It's idiotic to call a guy "socialist" when he's enacting Republican policy.
I don't know how "kids in cages" is conservative,
It's part of the whole "tough on immigration" schtick.
I don't think there's any version of conservative that is compatible with Obama's ACA and the massive increase in regulation and spending it required
Spending? Well the defense increases of the 1980s and the interstate highways of the 1950s come to mind. Regulation? We have ERISA, TEFRA, and COBRA all coming out of Republican presidencies within 12 years. Trust me, the regulation is huge. The ACA involves massive levels of both, but huge spending and regulation is not unprecedented among conservatives.
I guess I don't understand the standards you are using. When Obama keeps taxes the same or raises them he's conservative. When Reagan cuts taxes, he's a liberal. Reagan's defense spending increases are liberal, but Obama's Medicaid expansion is conservative. Reagan raising taxes in a recession is "Keynesian" but Obama pushing through a massive spending stimulus during one (the most Keynesian act possible) supposedly is not. Obama's amnesty by EO is conservative, but Reagan signing legislation with an amnesty is "liberal" It doesn't make sense to me and anyone who lived through these years would not remember Reagan as representing the liberal agenda and Obama the conservative one during their tenures. They both compromised in ways that bothered their more partisan party members angry but that just doesn't make Obama more conservative than Reagan, at all.
. It's idiotic to call a guy "socialist" when he's enacting Republican policy.
That's a completely different argument. I'm not calling Obama a socialist. I'm saying it's idiotic to call him more conservative than Reagan.
If conservativism generally equates to "lower spending on welfare/social programs, lower taxes, support for free markets and less regulation on business, defense spending as a priority, " than Reagan was far and away more conservative than Obama. I don't see any way that be argued while respecting reality.
The world is messy. Reagan deviated from the conservative line sometimes. Obama was not as left wing as his supporters sometimes wanted him to be. That doesn't make Obama more conservative than Regan, it just seems like one of those two cute by half claims people make that don't really have relationship to reality.
When Obama keeps taxes the same or raises them he's conservative. When Reagan cuts taxes, he's a liberal.
I think you're thinking in terms of the current use of the words "conservative" or "liberal". I'm speaking in relative terms. Many of the actions of Obama's term were more conservative than those of Reagan's.
But most people focus vastly more on what is said than what is done, so narratives take hold.
And I guess that's my primary point. All too often we conflate what a politician says they're trying to do with what they actually enact. We fall for the sales pitch.
If Barack Obama had run on the platform of "we're going to build cages to house illegal immigrants, including their children", everybody would have been horrified. But that's exactly what he did. Similarly, if Reagan had said "I'm going to raise taxes 11 different ways", he would never have been anywhere near the WH.
That's a completely different argument. I'm not calling Obama a socialist.
OK, but that was my original premise. People do try to call him a socialist. Which is nonsense.
I'm saying it's idiotic to call him more conservative than Reagan.
I said "in many ways" he was more conservative. When we ignore intentions and look at results, I don't think that's a stretch.
Hopefully, no right winger follows the example set by by the left and fires shots into the lobby of an abc affiliate to protest an employment decision made by Kimmels employer.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As the Wor(l)d Turns and other soapy operas.
Second thoughts or public pressure?
I think we are stuck in either/nor and neither/or territory ... but then China is about to become a bestie again if Trump gets a TikTok cut.
Well, Sinclair said its affiliates will preempt the show for the time being, with Nexstar likely to follow suit
Kimmel has he will double down on the remarks, whatever that means.
... of course Nexstar's and Sinclair's multi billion acquisition wishes have naught to do with aught ... @!@
He doesn't have to apologize does he?
He might have some 'splainin' to do but I seriously doubt it. Anyhoot tomorrow night's show should be a ratings buster.
He probably will apologize, along with thanking all those who showed him support. Then he'll get serious about the implications of what happened, but then absolve ABC and Disney in some way, they do pay his salary, then he'll push the limits of telling bad taste Trump jokes to prove the company is not bowing to the wannabe authoritarian.
Probably because he was fixing to sue ABC for about a zillion dollars. Also, there are some industry people promising not to work with ABC/Disney ever again.
how many zeros is that?
I feel like it should be 10 to the 26th. Last letter of the alphabet and all.
So, Carr had nothing to do with it.
Another mystery solved.
Only 2 assumptions on your part ... a record!
Since you made it about me again, make sure my every word is fact checked.
No slacking!
No need and a waste of sand.
“This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.
I know the world is bruised and bleeding, and though it is important not to ignore its pain, it is also critical to refuse to succumb to its malevolence. Like failure, chaos contains information that can lead to knowledge — even wisdom. Like art.”
~ Toni Morrison
Disney's stock prices were plummeting
That started 2 weeks ago.
I've seen reports of $3.8B in losses, but if you deep dive that it's small news sites talking about social media reports. Not so trustworthy. I think this is more about their own talent rebelling than anything else. The trailer for The Mandalorian and Grogu trailer just dropped today. How much money would Disney lose just on that movie if the talent behind it decided not to do the press tour?
Good question
That $3.8B was only 7% of the stock value... Hahahaha!
Look forward to all the apologies for the fake cries of fascism
Was it censorship when Barr was fired?
Did Obama call the station?
Exposing one's bigotry by calling one of the former Presidents advisors the progeny of the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes because she happened to be black is very different than stating a fact as Kimmel did. Anyone with more than half a brain could see that the "MAGA gang" was, in fact, spending all their time after the murder of Kirk trying to tie it to "the left" which is basically what Kimmel said. He said that the "MAGA gang" were "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" which they were.
So, in the first case, Barr said something that was untrue and extremely overtly bigoted while Kimmell said something that was completely true but made the "MAGA gang" angry.
The other big difference was that it appears that the media companies who have a proposal they want approved by the FCC that is controlled by the Trump administration listened to the Trump official who threatened them to remove Kimmel and they complied. That is WAY different than the Barr cancelation. That's not just walking the line on the edge of authoritarianism, that's throwing off the towel and jumping right in.
As for the attempt at what-about-ism, or Kimmel's comments that, whoever put that meme together, thinks are hypocritical, I don't recall Kimmel ever saying that his company did not have the right to cancel any of their shows including his. What Barr said was indeed vile, what Kimmel said was literally true.
Of course it was true............../S
I haven't seen anyone prove any different. Were the MAGA gang trying to prove it was the "left" who killed Kirk? Of course. By definition, does that not mean they were trying to prove it was not MAGA? So that line of Kimmel's joke was factually correct. Were the MAGA gang trying to win political points by smearing the "left" with the murder? Of course they were. So, second part of the joke was accurate. Conclusion? As I said, what Kimmel said was literally true.
lol. As you completely ignroe the first part of the the statement.
now tell us how the “new low” was the maga gang desperately (no loaded language there) making factual claims about the shooters identity.
You believe telling the truth is worse than lying. That’s the literal truth of Kimmels statement.
They are no different from the fake cries of 'communism' or its far more evil twin 'socialism'.
That's a fascinating tangent, as it just so clearly illustrates the ignorance necessary for extremism.
On one hand you have people who routinely call Barack Obama a socialist, when in many ways he was more conservative than Reagan.
On the other, you have people who try to tell us how public libraries and schools are great examples of how wonderful socialism can be, when there isn't anything remotely socialist about them.
one hand you have people who routinely call Barack Obama a socialist, when in many ways he was more conservative than Reagan
in what ways could you make that arguement?
On an inflation adjusted basis, TEFRA has been described as the largest tax increase in US history. It raised taxes by almost 1% of GDP. Then we had amnesty for illegal aliens, sweeping employee rights legislation including healthcare reform, massive increases in govt spending to fuel economic growth. Reagan's actions were classic Keynesian.
Conversely, Obama was all about trickle down. Trillions going to banks and corporations, explosive income inequality, while the American Taxpayer Relief Act extended tax cuts from previous Republican administration. Not to mention kids in cages and over 3 million deportations.
In 2009, very few of us would have objected to Obama nationalizing the banking industry. We were both sick and tired of those fuckers losing all our money and crippling our economy.... again. But he didn't do that. Instead, we gave them trillions of dollars.
He also signed the Affordable Care Act, blasting health insurer and drugmaker profits through the roof.
Let's remember, Reagan always had a Democratic Congres, so he never had the freedom of action Obama did:
(1) TEFRA came after he passed the largest tax cut in history and combined, the two tax bills dramatically lowered the tax burden.
(2) Amnesty was in a bill passed by Congress and was considered a trade for security that Democrats subsequently reneged on.
(3) Spending increases were primarily defense and entitlement mandated. As entitlements and interest payments are non-discretionary, it's hard to code any of that as "liberal" I don't remember any liberals being happy with increased defense spending, do you?
(4) You first point about TEFRA directly contradicts your claims that Reagan's actions were classic Keynesian.
Conversely, Obama was all about trickle down
The data says otherwise. Obama and his party passed a massive federal stimulus, which is actually classic Keynesian. Defense spending declined and discretionary spending skyrocketed, highlighted by the massive expansion in Medicaid, which is incredibly "liberal coded"
illions going to banks and corporations
I don't think that's in any sense of the word more conservative. The conservative approach would be to allow failing businesses to fail. Intervention and bailouts are not free market solutions to problem.
while the American Taxpayer Relief Act extended tax cuts from previous Republican administration
Obama raised them. ATRA didn't raise taxes on everyone, he kept most the same, but he did on high earners. Reagan massively cut taxes, a big difference.
ot to mention kids in cages and over 3 million deportations
I don't know how "kids in cages" is conservative, but Obama issued an amnesty by executive order, even after claiming it was unconstitutional to do so. There was no compromise with Congress, just Obama ordering an amnesty on his own accord.
e also signed the Affordable Care Act,
I don't think there's any version of conservative that is compatible with Obama's ACA and the massive increase in regulation and spending it required
Let's understand, I'm not criticizing Reagan.
Reagan is without question the best president of my lifetime, in no small part for some of the reasons you describe.
Amnesty was the pragmatic solution. We added millions of legal taxpayers overnight.
Spending increases were primarily defense and entitlement mandated. As entitlements and interest payments are non-discretionary, it's hard to code any of that as "liberal" I don't remember any liberals being happy with increased defense spending, do you?
I'm not talking about them being "happy". The great hallmark of American liberalism is that it never makes anybody happy. It simply makes it so they don't have to be miserable alone.
Keynesian economics is about government managing the economy centrally through increased spending and taxation. Reagan did both.
And Reagan also busted the Air Traffic Controllers strike. Nobody sane is 100% one way or the other. Operative word being "sane".
The ones he could allow to fail, he did. Remember GM? But the term "too big to fail" is not just a saying. Bank of America, Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, AIG and several others were actually too big to let them fail. The original plan to bail them out was devised under W, and Obama stuck to the script. It's idiotic to call a guy "socialist" when he's enacting Republican policy.
It's part of the whole "tough on immigration" schtick.
Spending? Well the defense increases of the 1980s and the interstate highways of the 1950s come to mind. Regulation? We have ERISA, TEFRA, and COBRA all coming out of Republican presidencies within 12 years. Trust me, the regulation is huge. The ACA involves massive levels of both, but huge spending and regulation is not unprecedented among conservatives.
I guess I don't understand the standards you are using. When Obama keeps taxes the same or raises them he's conservative. When Reagan cuts taxes, he's a liberal. Reagan's defense spending increases are liberal, but Obama's Medicaid expansion is conservative. Reagan raising taxes in a recession is "Keynesian" but Obama pushing through a massive spending stimulus during one (the most Keynesian act possible) supposedly is not. Obama's amnesty by EO is conservative, but Reagan signing legislation with an amnesty is "liberal" It doesn't make sense to me and anyone who lived through these years would not remember Reagan as representing the liberal agenda and Obama the conservative one during their tenures. They both compromised in ways that bothered their more partisan party members angry but that just doesn't make Obama more conservative than Reagan, at all.
. It's idiotic to call a guy "socialist" when he's enacting Republican policy.
That's a completely different argument. I'm not calling Obama a socialist. I'm saying it's idiotic to call him more conservative than Reagan.
If conservativism generally equates to "lower spending on welfare/social programs, lower taxes, support for free markets and less regulation on business, defense spending as a priority, " than Reagan was far and away more conservative than Obama. I don't see any way that be argued while respecting reality.
The world is messy. Reagan deviated from the conservative line sometimes. Obama was not as left wing as his supporters sometimes wanted him to be. That doesn't make Obama more conservative than Regan, it just seems like one of those two cute by half claims people make that don't really have relationship to reality.
,
I think you're thinking in terms of the current use of the words "conservative" or "liberal". I'm speaking in relative terms. Many of the actions of Obama's term were more conservative than those of Reagan's.
But most people focus vastly more on what is said than what is done, so narratives take hold.
And I guess that's my primary point. All too often we conflate what a politician says they're trying to do with what they actually enact. We fall for the sales pitch.
If Barack Obama had run on the platform of "we're going to build cages to house illegal immigrants, including their children", everybody would have been horrified. But that's exactly what he did. Similarly, if Reagan had said "I'm going to raise taxes 11 different ways", he would never have been anywhere near the WH.
OK, but that was my original premise. People do try to call him a socialist. Which is nonsense.
I said "in many ways" he was more conservative. When we ignore intentions and look at results, I don't think that's a stretch.
Hopefully, no right winger follows the example set by by the left and fires shots into the lobby of an abc affiliate to protest an employment decision made by Kimmels employer.
The "evil" Hollywood talent rebelled against their corporate masters.
Sinclair will apparently not be carrying his show...
Maybe they can rotate selected speeches from Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon.
Steve Bannon's Trotsky impersonations are not-to-be-missed.