Kimmel Needs to Go

[Lockback]

This is what he said hours after Kirk was murdered. If you don't find this gracious, that's on you.

View attachment 1253027

I don't have Twitter.
And I see he got the obligatory Marxist "senseless gun violence" remark in. Good for him.

 

[Political-Junkie]

I don't have Twitter.
And I see he got the obligatory Marxist "senseless gun violence" remark in. Good for him.

Still gracious. Are you for or against senseless gun violence?

 

[Delldude]

This is what he said hours after Kirk was murdered. If you don't find this gracious, that's on you.

View attachment 1253027

It's the comments on the 15th that got him in hot water.

You forgot to mention that.

 

[Lockback]

Still gracious. Are you for or against senseless gun violence?

I'm totally opposed to senseless gun control laws.

 

[Political-Junkie]

It's the comments on the 15th that got him in hot water.

You forgot to mention that.

How did I forget to mention that when I mentioned it in post #'s 1146, 1154 & 1157?

 

[Political-Junkie]

I'm totally opposed to senseless gun control laws.

Why no answer to my question? I asked if you're for or against senseless gun violence, not senseless gun laws.

 

[Lockback]

Why no answer to my question? I asked if you're for or against senseless gun violence, not senseless gun laws.

Obviously, who would be in FAVOR of senseless gun violence?
That's a stupid gotcha attempt. You failed.
Gun control is stupid. It doesn't work and it allows governments to totally control their people.
Ain't gonna happen here, pal.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Obviously, who would be in FAVOR of senseless gun violence?
That's a stupid gotcha attempt. You failed.
Gun control is stupid. It doesn't work and it allows governments to totally control their people.
Ain't gonna happen here, pal.

Great, so you're in agreement with Jimmy Kimmel.

 

[Concerned American]

You don’t think right wingers like talking about killing their political opponents.

It is clear you don't understand the difference between frustrated TALK and pulling the trigger. Typical democrat.

 

[Lockback]

Great, so you're in agreement with Jimmy Kimmel.

No. Jimmy Kimmel wants guns banned.
I don't.
But nice try.
Nobody is in favor of senseless gun violence ... other than many, many Democrats.

 

[Delldude]

How did I forget to mention that when I mentioned it in post #'s 1146, 1154 & 1157?

1160 bit you in the ass.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Still gracious. Are you for or against senseless gun violence?

/-----/ I asked Gemini.

1. Tactical Description: The "False Dilemma"​

The core of this question is an attempt to separate intent from policy. By isolating "senseless gun violence," the speaker is trying to establish a baseline of moral agreement that makes any subsequent disagreement on "gun laws" look like a defense of violence.

• The Goal: To force the opponent to agree to a "truism" (that violence is bad). Once they agree, the speaker will likely argue that their preferred laws are the only logical way to stop that violence.
• The Logical Pivot: If the opponent refuses to answer, they look like they are dodging a simple moral question. If they answer "against," they risk being guided into a "then why don't you support X law?" trap.

 

[Rawley]

/---/ When Kimmel was off the air briefly, the networks ran Celebrity Password or some game show that drew 3 times the ratings, and it cost the network nothing.

Shareholders have to start asking questions as to why management keeps this loser on.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Great, so you're in agreement with Jimmy Kimmel.

/-----/ That’s a loaded question. Nobody is 'for' senseless violence. The actual debate isn't about our shared dislike of violence; it’s about whether your proposed laws actually stop it or simply infringe on rights without results.

 

[Political-Junkie]

No. Jimmy Kimmel wants guns banned.
I don't.
But nice try.
Nobody is in favor of senseless gun violence ... other than many, many Democrats.

What he said was, "On behalf of my family, we send love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence."

But underneath your criticisms of him saying that, you agreed with it.

 

[Delldude]

/-----/ I asked Gemini.

1. Tactical Description: The "False Dilemma"​

The core of this question is an attempt to separate intent from policy. By isolating "senseless gun violence," the speaker is trying to establish a baseline of moral agreement that makes any subsequent disagreement on "gun laws" look like a defense of violence.

• The Goal: To force the opponent to agree to a "truism" (that violence is bad). Once they agree, the speaker will likely argue that their preferred laws are the only logical way to stop that violence.
• The Logical Pivot: If the opponent refuses to answer, they look like they are dodging a simple moral question. If they answer "against," they risk being guided into a "then why don't you support X law?" trap.

Did you get that out of the dems operation manual?

 

[Political-Junkie]

1160 bit you in the ass.

How so?

 

[Political-Junkie]

/-----/ I asked Gemini.

1. Tactical Description: The "False Dilemma"​

The core of this question is an attempt to separate intent from policy. By isolating "senseless gun violence," the speaker is trying to establish a baseline of moral agreement that makes any subsequent disagreement on "gun laws" look like a defense of violence.

• The Goal: To force the opponent to agree to a "truism" (that violence is bad). Once they agree, the speaker will likely argue that their preferred laws are the only logical way to stop that violence.
• The Logical Pivot: If the opponent refuses to answer, they look like they are dodging a simple moral question. If they answer "against," they risk being guided into a "then why don't you support X law?" trap.

There was no discussion on senseless gun laws.

 

[Cellblock2429]

There was no discussion on senseless gun laws.

/----/ It went right over your head. the speaker is trying to establish a baseline of moral agreement that makes any subsequent disagreement on "gun laws" look like a defense of violence.

 

[Political-Junkie]

/-----/ That’s a loaded question. Nobody is 'for' senseless violence. The actual debate isn't about our shared dislike of violence; it’s about whether your proposed laws actually stop it or simply infringe on rights without results.

That poster attacked Kimmel for speaking out against senseless gun violence. That begs the question then if he is for or against it. If he's against it, why attack Kimmel for speaking out against it as well?