The Frankish Reich
-
Posts
13,520 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Frankish Reich
-
-
11 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:
I wouldn't say he cheered but he intentionally lied to the public....which is a violation of the integrity part of the FCC.
I mean it can't be argued. He called the kid MAGA to push a narrative. That is a violation of integrity.
Well, as I said he implied the kid was a MAGA type, but he didn't say it. What he did say was there was a furious attempt by MAGA folks to get ahead of anything that might implicate him as a MAGA supporter.
Whatever. This is an abuse of the FCC's powers, and note that they are now relying on an obsolete distinction between over-the-air broadcasters like ABC and "cable" broadcasters like Fox News. So Gutfeld can make fun of Paul Pelosi all he wants but Kimmel can't even gently chide Trump's cynical attempts to capitalize on an assassination.
The FCC Chair called it "the sickest comments possible." Really? Watch it and tell me where he criticizes Charlie Kirk.
-
3 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Can you explain, specifically, how Kimmel “cheered” murder? Please cite his exact wordsI'm not a regular Kimmel watcher, but I did tune in on Monday - that fateful night, in retrospect - to see how he'd deal with the Kirk murder. It was all pretty standard, with Kimmel properly decrying the killing. He then pivoted to how the MAGA folks were all too eager to use the killing to gain a political advantage. He did imply that a MAGA guy was probably behind it (something that we now know for sure isn't true), but he didn't flat-out accuse a MAGA supporter of being the killer.
His line about Trump somehow rambling on about his White House patio/ballroom project when asked about Kirk was spot-on, and kind of cringe rather than laugh amusing. But perfectly fair.
So I have to conclude this isn't about comments about Charlie Kirk at all, since there really weren't any. This is about criticism of Trump. As it always has been.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, dgrochester55 said:
The Libertarian part of me does not like to see anyone cancelled, the conservative side of me says, what goes around comes around. Most of those who are upset today about Kimmel getting cancelled were not quite as upset when conservatives were getting cancelled from 2020 to 2023.
There's a Gutfeld for every Kimmel now, a Ben Shapiro for every Rachel Maddow.
Maybe we just click to a different show?
-
1
-
-
Free speech absolutist Charlie Kirk would presumably be turning in his grave but he's not even buried yet.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, B-Man said:
HEY !
Do you remember who you are talking to ?
The board's (self appointed) V.O.R.
Yes, I am the Voice of Reason!
Luigi 1st Degree Murder charge dropped? Outrageous! Sounds like First Degree Murder to me!! I was scared!!! That's terrorism!!!! Liberal something something!!!!
Me: umm, maybe we should read the law?
-
1 hour ago, JDHillFan said:
I thought yesterday was bad for you. You are really struggling the last couple days. In this case, your “everyone” encompasses one person with one tweet. Can you please try harder? Maybe lay off the “everyone” when you don’t have a clue.
How long was it going to take for your little friends to bounce outside their echosphere and actually look at why the judge dismissed the terrorism-related charges?
You should be thanking me.
1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:If you listen to the statements from the wingnuts protesting on his behalf at the courthouse it would be hard to reach any other conclusion than this was political. The guy's on trial for murder and these simpletons are reciting standard talking points and slogans about how the trial highlights the inequities in the health care system. No it doesn't.
Oh, I don't deny the political implications. But looking at the NY State murder law - the one in play here - I have to agree with the judge. NY (our old friend Mr. Bragg) argued things like "the fact that he did it in Manhattan on a public street shows the intent to terrorize." But what if he had done it while the victim was onstage giving a speech, Charlie Kirk style? Well, I guess that's worse. What if he had done it by taking the elevator to the guy's private suite and killed him in his room?
They're all horrible offenses. It's just that there was nothing here that fit well within NY's special circumstances warranting 1st Degree Murder.
Do I think it's a stupid law that needs to be changed?
Yes, I do.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, JDHillFan said:
*reliable* mainstream media
Notice how everyone above my NYT post was cutting/pasting tweets expressing outrage without even bothering to look up the law.
-
2
-
-
BTW, what happened to those swingin' Moms for Liberty?
It's almost as if they were an astroturf group established to churn out pro-MAGA sentiments.
-
In which we turn to the Mainstream Media to explain (NYT)
While some states define first-degree murder as a premeditated killing, New York requires an additional aggravating circumstance, one of which is terrorism. Others include torture and killing a witness or law officer.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
Someone with the handle JDHillFan has been around long enough to not get whipped into a frenzy about anything.
I agree.
Unlike some others here, you don't seem the type that is likely to get worked up about the MAQA (Marxist Armed ***** Army) takeover.
Me? I'm still having nightmares about this:
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, B-Man said:
BREAKING: Jim Jordan just asked Kash Patel a flurry of rapid fire
questions and embarrassed every Democrat who has continuously
smeared Kash's performance at the FBI.
"Is the FBI still spying on parents at school board meetings?"
KASH: "No, sir."
"Is the FBI still targeting Catholics?"
KASH: "No, sir."
"Is the FBI still censoring Americans?"
KASH: "No, sir."
"Is the FBI still targeting Americans for shopping at Cabela's or purchasing Bibles?"
KASH: "Nobody is targeted for their faith."
"Is the FBI still targeting Americans who are pro-life?"
KASH: "Nobody is targeting anyone for their beliefs."
"Is the FBI still cooking the books on crime data?"
KASH: "The crime data is real."
"Is the FBI still purging agents for conservative viewpoints?"
KASH: "No one at the FBI is asked their viewpoints on politics."
"Is the FBI still labeling the Betsy Ross Flag, of the American Revolution, a 'hate symbol?'"
KASH: "No."
"Well, maybe that's why you've been able to - what was the number, 23,000 bad guys you've arrested? A HUGE increase from the same time period in the previous administration? I think you said 1,400 predators? 4,000 children rescued?" "Maybe when you're not focused on politics, you can focus on what the FBI is supposed to do - GO GET THE BAD GUYS!"
What happened to the classic "are you still beating your wife?"
-
3 hours ago, Walking Tall said:
My question is why would offend Starbuck’s so much for a person to give the name Charlie Kirk?We know the answer to that.
I'm pretty sure you can still get away with using the name Buford at Starbucks. Give it a try!
12 hours ago, B-Man said:Who is giving a first/last name at Starbucks anyway?
I'm sure they'll print Charlie. Or Charlie K.
And what was his favorite drink anyway?
So many questions.
EDIT: I just saw it was a Mint Majesty Tea with 2 Honeys.
Not the manliest order ever, not that there's anything wrong with that.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, B-Man said:
I guess it's some kind of "I am Spartacus" thing?
Whatever.
What idiot would give the name of a recently assassinated person to a Starbucks barista.
Breaking: they didn't even laugh when I gave them the name Harry Balls.
-
Just now, JFKjr said:
I don't agree with arresting or charging anyone for 'hate speech.'
I don't think it would stand judicially speaking.
Threats of violence may fall under a different category however, so we'll see how it plays out.
Good response.
But what do you think about the threats of prosecution coming from Bondi, Stephen Miller, even JD Vance? I'm not talking about prosecutions related to the actual murder of Kirk. I'm talking about prosecutions for protected speech. In what way is it o.k. for the highest law enforcement officer in the land to even threaten such clearly unconstitutional prosecutions in order to keep people from exercising their constitutional rights?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:
Or is it because his viewpoint doesn't align with yours?
I think you may be onto something here ...
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Roundybout said:
Pam Bondi sure can’t. And that’s the scary thingThe Bondi statement on "hate speech" is just stunning coming from the nation's chief law enforcement officer. Anyone who wrote that on a bar exam would fail.
And what's more troubling: a lot of Trump fans (including obviously many here) think that this is good policy and constitutional.
I thought this was supposed to be about undoing the excesses of Wokism. The kind of thing where saying something innocuous and even true about George Floyd ("remember, he was a career criminal") could get you canceled. Now we're seeing that it is about substituting Right Wing Wokism for Left Wing Wokism. Say something innocuous and true about Charlie Kirk ("remember, his style of rhetoric is what inflames people") and you can get canceled. And now if Pam Bondi has her way, you can get indicted too.
I guess that's what you voted for.
-
2
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, JDHillFan said:
Probably not. Good on him.
Should employers subject their business to unhinged employees that embarrass them in a very public way celebrating the murder of someone? Just because they didn’t like what he had to say?
Are you upset that Trump is not handling the death of Charlie Kirk properly?
No, but I'm just a teensy weensy bit upset that Trump is asking for federal employees/military men and women to rat out any colleagues that might not say only wonderful things about the late Charlie Kirk.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
This young liberal actress is what Frankish would call self-hating. It’s possible he only describes gay men that he disagrees with politically as self-hating, but I doubt it.
No, not self-hating.
You have much to learn.
-
Horseshoe Theory, my friends. Horseshoe Theory.
When you can't actually tell which political camp a meme is supposed to be mocking or expressing support for, it just may be that the poster isn't following grandpa's left-middle-right political orthodoxy ...
-
On 9/13/2025 at 12:17 PM, B-Man said:
.
Who is this person, and why are you posting his photo?
-
Would free speech champion Charlie Kirk be in favor of firing people who spoke ill of Charlie Kirk on social media? Hmm ....
... Trump always seems to know how to cede the moral high ground within roughly 48 hours.
-
2 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:
On brand response from you, unfortunately.
Have you watched it? RFK says he spoke to Charlie and then mentions only what he (RFK) allegedly said to Charlie. Nothing from Charlie himself.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
Why would corporate America take any official action here?
His assassination was a tragedy and a dark moment for America. I've been trying to think of a similar figure on the left. He wasn't a pure political consultant turned pundit like a James Carville. He wasn't a talk radio guy like Limbaugh (although I think he fits perfectly as a successor to Limbaugh for the social media age).
My best comparison: John Oliver, who just took home another Emmy or two. Or maybe Jon Stewart. If some weirdo takes out John Oliver or Jon Stewart, what would you expect from corporate America?
-
1 hour ago, B-Man said:
In which RFK, shockingly, makes it all about RFK.
Leftists Getting Fired For Ghoulish Charlie Kirk Social Media Posts
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
The problem is the FCC is not-so-subtly threatening to use its unrelated authority to approve mergers in order to gain leverage. That's how the CBS/Paramount settlement happened - after it was done, Larry Ellison's son completed his takeover. Same here with the Tegna proposed merger.
And here I thought MAGA was about constraining the power of an unaccountable bureaucracy ...