What is the kind of speech that promotes violence?

The First Amendment protects a wide range of speech. That doesn?t mean
there shouldn?t be social consequences for what someone says. So what
kind of speech deserves social consequences?

Jimmy Kimmel is America?s poster child for all idiotic political
discourse. Long ago, Jimmy Kimmel ditched comedy in favor of smug
lectures and fake tears. He?s not funny. He?s not clever. He?s just an annoying left-wing agitprop creator.

But when Jimmy Kimmel and his ilk on the Left and in the legacy media
start pushing genuinely conspiratorial speech, their rhetoric is no
longer just about bad jokes on television.

Should he be on the unemployment line?

Let?s discuss three basic standards when it comes to political speech in
the United States.

First: the illegal. There actually is illegal political speech in the
United States. If you say, ?I want to go kill the president of the
United States,? that?s illegal. It?s either incitement or it?s an active threat. It came out of your mouth. It may be a form of speech, but it is
also an active threat.

Under the Brandenburg test, incitement is any speech that is intended to
and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

If I say, ?You should go kill the president,? I?d probably have to say
for it to be an illegal incitement, ?I want you to go kill the president
right now.?

If I said that ? (obviously I?m using this as an example. No one should
ever do political violence) ? in that particular scenario, that would be incitement.

Second: Typical inflammatory rhetoric. This would be stuff like ?Fight,
fight, fight? or the Sarah Palin map of districts that targeted
particular congressional districts. One of the targeted districts
happened to be Gabby Giffords? district. The Left tried to claim that
because of that map, somebody tried to shoot Gabby Giffords. That?s
silly.

When people say, ?We need to go to war with the Democrats,? or ?We need
to go to war with the Republicans,? is that going to lead to actual
violence? No, because that sort of rhetoric is pretty typical of normal inflammatory rhetoric in politics. And we should not conflate that with incitement.

Third: The permission structure for violence. We have been talking about
that a lot over the past couple of years. That stuff is truly dangerous.
This is the conspiracism, the justification of violence. This is how you
get crazy people to believe the president is a pedophile, meaning a
threat to children, a rapist, meaning a threat to women, and a traitor, meaning a threat to the country, and in charge of all of the systems of
power, and therefore can only be stopped through violence.

But conflating these things leads to confusion that leads to inaction.
If you try to lump together ?We should go fight the Democrats? or ?We
should go fight the Republicans? with ?The Democrats are pedophiles
attacking children at a pizzeria,? or ?The president of the United
States is running a pedophile grooming gang,? those are not at all the
same. Treating them as the same leads to inaction and an inability to
agree on what is appropriate and what is inappropriate.

When you create insane theories about people being corrupt and evil and
using their power in corrupt and evil ways, and those conspiracy
theories suggest those people are a threat to you, it is not a gigantic surprise when somebody attempts to assassinate the president.

I think Jimmy Kimmel is awful. Kimmel has been terrible at his job for
years. I think that he has surrendered laughter in favor of applause
from his left-wing friends.

If Jimmy Kimmel were to get fired, after he said before the White House Correspondents? Dinner that Melania Trump had ?the glow of an expectant widow,? I would shed zero tears.

Zero. I think that he is a propagandist. I do not think that he is
funny. I think that he has betrayed his audience in surrendering humor
in favor of left-wing agitprop.

But, in this particular situation, I will say, I think that if Jimmy
Kimmel were to be fired over his comments about Melania, it would be
like arresting Al Capone for tax evasion. You?re hitting him with the
wrong charge.

I think that Melania has every rationale for being furious at Jimmy
Kimmel for being a scumbag.

I also think what Jimmy Kimmel was joking about was the idea ? which is egregious enough ? that Melania hates the president, would be happy if
he were dead, and could inherit his wealth ? was disgusting, but was
not, in fact, a call to violence.

Kimmel defended his joke by saying it was a joke about their age
difference, adding, ?I understand that the first lady had a stressful experience over the weekend, and probably every weekend is pretty
stressful in that house. And also, I agree that hateful and violent
rhetoric is something we should reject. I do, and I think a great place
to start to dial that back would be to have a conversation with your
husband about it.?

His defense is actually worse than the original joke, which was
tasteless. First of all, suggesting that Melania having stressful
weekends is akin to somebody trying to kill her husband is insane and ridiculous. And for a person who tries to brand himself as Captain
Empathy, Kimmel lacks true empathy in any realistic sense. And then, of course, he turned, swiveled, and clocked the president for his political rhetoric.

It is amazing how our world has changed. The kind of hatred that has
become commonplace in our politics is so clear. Back in 1981, somebody
tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan, a few days before the Oscars. And
Johnny Carson, who was then the dominant late-night host ? and a
Democrat? was hosting the Oscars.

He said, ?Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I?m sure that all
of you here, and most of you watching tonight, understand why we delayed
this program for 24 hours because of the incredible events of yesterday.
That old adage, ?the show must go on,? seemed relatively unimportant.
The Academy, ABC television, and all of us connected with the show felt, because of the uncertain outcome as of this time yesterday, it would
have been inappropriate to stage a celebration. But the news today is
very good, as you know. The president is in excellent condition. At last reports, he?s been conducting business.?

The audience applauded.

Do you think that you?d get anything like that from Hollywood today if
the president had been shot in the chest?

I think that Kimmel?s jokes are terrible. I think they?re unfunny. I
don?t even believe his woke politics. This is a dude who used to do ?The
Man Show? with Adam Carolla, in which women bounced around on
trampolines without bras.

Do I believe the new woke Jimmy Kimmel? I don?t, but again, bad jokes, tastelessness, being bad at his job, that?s not the reason why Jimmy
Kimmel should have been fired long ago.

If you want to talk about the kinds of rhetoric that lead people to try
to kill the president, the answer is not his joke about Melania or
making light of the idea of the president passing away or something of
that ilk. That is not what leads to violence.

What leads to violence is pretty obvious: the actual conspiracism.

Jimmy Kimmel has spent years calling the president a pedophile. He has
accused him of being involved with Epstein. _That_ is also what is in
the actual shooter?s manifesto.

Kimmel has said, ?He?s coming after our right to vote. He?s protecting pedophiles and won?t explain it. He?s lining the pockets of
billionaires, all while neglecting the sick, the poor, the hungry, in
the name of Jesus, by the way.?

Also: ?When your best friend was a pedophile and you?re losing bigly in
the swing states with an election coming up, what do you do? I?ll tell
you what you do. You fire the weapons of mass destruction. And that
would mean he?d have to come up with another distraction from the war.
And if you do need that, Mr. President, I got a good one for you; you
know what would distract us from the war? Release the unreleased Trump
Epstein files.?

Also, to Trump: ?Thank you for watching. I?m surprised ? . Isn?t it past
your jail time??

Also: ?And by the way, if Trump wants to send a rapist somewhere, he can
just jump on a bus himself, you know.?

It was Jimmy Kimmel calling Trump a cover-up artist for pedophilia and a rapist, and all the rest ? _that_ is the permission structure for the violence.

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that
need to be called out, that should have social consequences,
conspiracism, anti-evidence idiocy that imputes evil to an opponent
without evidence: _That?s_ the kind of stuff that?s bad.

I?m not blaming Melania for being deeply upset with that joke from last
week, because obviously, if you hear that joke and time flattens and
then somebody tries to shoot your husband, you should be beyond furious.

But the kind of rhetoric that we all should be fighting is the rhetoric
that encourages conspiratorial thinking.

--
Democrats and the liberal media hate President Trump more than they
love this country.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

Let?s discuss three basic standards when it comes to political speech in
the United States.

First: the illegal. There actually is illegal political speech in the
United States. If you say, "I want to go kill the president of the
United States," that?s illegal. It's either incitement or it's an active threat. It came out of your mouth. It may be a form of speech, but it is also an active threat.

But it can't be prosecuted. There's a legal difference between saying you want something and saying you intend to do it.

"I want to kill..." or "I hope someone kills..." vs "I'm going to kill..."

Under Elonis vs. United States, the threat must be a "true threat" in order to be prosecutable. The defendant must both truly intend the threat and have the actual ability to carry out the threat.

With regard to ability, some defendants have since argued that since the president is so well-protected, they didn't have an actual ability to carry it out as Elonis requires. The courts have further clarified that the target's accessibility is not relevant to a true threat analysis, but whether the defendant has weapons, ability to travel to the target, etc. For example, a
guy who was serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison had no actual ability to carry out his threats. Another defendant was ruled unprosecutable for his threats because his confinement to a wheelchair as a quadriplegic
meant he had no ability to carry out the threat.

Under the Brandenburg test, incitement is any speech that is intended to
and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

If I say, "You should go kill the president," I'd probably have to say
for it to be an illegal incitement, "I want you to go kill the president right now."

You'd also have to say it to someone who could reasonably attempt to do it right now. If you both were in Texas when you said it and the president was on a state visit to Australia, the immediacy requirement of Brandenburg would fail.

Second: Typical inflammatory rhetoric. This would be stuff like "Fight, fight, fight" or the Sarah Palin map of districts that targeted
particular congressional districts. One of the targeted districts
happened to be Gabby Giffords' district. The Left tried to claim that because of that map, somebody tried to shoot Gabby Giffords. That's
silly.

Silly for many reasons, not the least of which is that the extensive law enforcement investigation into Jared Loughner-- Giffords' attacker-- showed that he was essentially apolitical, -- and his motive for the attack was delusions due to mental illness.

To this day, former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, along with Nancy
Pelosi and her Democrat cabal, not only still insist that Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords because of his right-wing extremist ideology, but that certain Republicans-- Sarah Palin chief among them-- were responsible for lighting his fuse, when in reality, the extensive investigation of Loughner's entire life revealed him to be apolitical with no feelings, positive or negative, for either party, there was no evidence that Loughner ever even saw Palin's web site, and his attack on Giffords was the result of his mental illness, not his political ideology.

And on the rare occasion they make their fake claim and the facts are pointed out to them in real time, what do they say? Well, Schultz says it doesn't matter. Even if Loughner wasn't motivated by far-right politics, he's an
avatar for those who are. This is the same excuse they use when someone like Juicy Smollett is caught faking a hate crime: "Well, even if this wasn't real, the fact that it was so believable speaks to how racist America is." (That was actually Joy Behar's squirming excuse for her support of Juicy's lie on THE VIEW.)

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that
need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the country off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them money by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:29:41 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

Let?s discuss three basic standards when it comes to political speech in
the United States.

First: the illegal. There actually is illegal political speech in the
United States. If you say, "I want to go kill the president of the
United States," that?s illegal. It's either incitement or it's an active
threat. It came out of your mouth. It may be a form of speech, but it is
also an active threat.

But it can't be prosecuted. There's a legal difference between saying you want >something and saying you intend to do it.

"I want to kill..." or "I hope someone kills..." vs "I'm going to kill..."

Under Elonis vs. United States, the threat must be a "true threat" in order to >be prosecutable. The defendant must both truly intend the threat and have the >actual ability to carry out the threat.

So your saying we can't prosecute someone for posting a picture of a
bunch of sea shells that say 86 someone?

With regard to ability, some defendants have since argued that since the >president is so well-protected, they didn't have an actual ability to carry it >out as Elonis requires. The courts have further clarified that the target's >accessibility is not relevant to a true threat analysis, but whether the >defendant has weapons, ability to travel to the target, etc. For example, a >guy who was serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison had no actual >ability to carry out his threats. Another defendant was ruled unprosecutable >for his threats because his confinement to a wheelchair as a quadriplegic >meant he had no ability to carry out the threat.

Under the Brandenburg test, incitement is any speech that is intended to
and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

If I say, "You should go kill the president," I'd probably have to say
for it to be an illegal incitement, "I want you to go kill the president
right now."

You'd also have to say it to someone who could reasonably attempt to do it >right now. If you both were in Texas when you said it and the president was on >a state visit to Australia, the immediacy requirement of Brandenburg would >fail.

Second: Typical inflammatory rhetoric. This would be stuff like "Fight,
fight, fight" or the Sarah Palin map of districts that targeted
particular congressional districts. One of the targeted districts
happened to be Gabby Giffords' district. The Left tried to claim that
because of that map, somebody tried to shoot Gabby Giffords. That's
silly.

Silly for many reasons, not the least of which is that the extensive law >enforcement investigation into Jared Loughner-- Giffords' attacker-- showed >that he was essentially apolitical, -- and his motive for the attack was >delusions due to mental illness.

To this day, former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, along with Nancy >Pelosi and her Democrat cabal, not only still insist that Jared Loughner shot >Gabrielle Giffords because of his right-wing extremist ideology, but that >certain Republicans-- Sarah Palin chief among them-- were responsible for >lighting his fuse, when in reality, the extensive investigation of Loughner's >entire life revealed him to be apolitical with no feelings, positive or >negative, for either party, there was no evidence that Loughner ever even saw >Palin's web site, and his attack on Giffords was the result of his mental >illness, not his political ideology.

And on the rare occasion they make their fake claim and the facts are pointed >out to them in real time, what do they say? Well, Schultz says it doesn't >matter. Even if Loughner wasn't motivated by far-right politics, he's an >avatar for those who are. This is the same excuse they use when someone like >Juicy Smollett is caught faking a hate crime: "Well, even if this wasn't real, >the fact that it was so believable speaks to how racist America is." (That was >actually Joy Behar's squirming excuse for her support of Juicy's lie on THE >VIEW.)

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that
need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the country >off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them money >by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

Let's discuss three basic standards when it comes to political speech in >>the United States.

First: the illegal. There actually is illegal political speech in the >>United States. If you say, "I want to go kill the president of the
United States," that's illegal. It's either incitement or it's an active >>threat. It came out of your mouth. It may be a form of speech, but it is >>also an active threat.

But it can't be prosecuted. There's a legal difference between saying you want >something and saying you intend to do it.

"I want to kill..." or "I hope someone kills..." vs "I'm going to kill..."

Under Elonis vs. United States, the threat must be a "true threat" in order to >be prosecutable. The defendant must both truly intend the threat and have the >actual ability to carry out the threat.

With regard to ability, some defendants have since argued that since the >president is so well-protected, they didn't have an actual ability to carry it >out as Elonis requires. The courts have further clarified that the target's >accessibility is not relevant to a true threat analysis, but whether the >defendant has weapons, ability to travel to the target, etc. For example, a >guy who was serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison had no actual >ability to carry out his threats. Another defendant was ruled unprosecutable >for his threats because his confinement to a wheelchair as a quadriplegic >meant he had no ability to carry out the threat.

Thank you for explaining the decision. When someone is charged with a
threat, we often hear prosecutors state weapons procured and that the perpetrator had travelled, so those are necessary elements of the crime.

. . .

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Apr 29, 2026 at 10:53:44 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:29:41 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote: >>

Let?s discuss three basic standards when it comes to political speech in >>> the United States.

First: the illegal. There actually is illegal political speech in the
United States. If you say, "I want to go kill the president of the
United States," that?s illegal. It's either incitement or it's an active >>> threat. It came out of your mouth. It may be a form of speech, but it is >>> also an active threat.

But it can't be prosecuted. There's a legal difference between saying you
want
something and saying you intend to do it.

"I want to kill..." or "I hope someone kills..." vs "I'm going to kill..." >>
Under Elonis vs. United States, the threat must be a "true threat" in order >> to
be prosecutable. The defendant must both truly intend the threat and have the
actual ability to carry out the threat.

So your saying we can't prosecute someone for posting a picture of a
bunch of sea shells that say 86 someone?

Well, I wasn't saying that specifically, but now that you bring it up, yes, such a person could not be successfully prosecuted consistent with the 1st Amendment.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 4/29/2026 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

Let?s discuss three basic standards when it comes to political speech in
the United States.

First: the illegal. There actually is illegal political speech in the
United States. If you say, "I want to go kill the president of the
United States," that?s illegal. It's either incitement or it's an active
threat. It came out of your mouth. It may be a form of speech, but it is
also an active threat.

But it can't be prosecuted. There's a legal difference between saying you want
something and saying you intend to do it.

"I want to kill..." or "I hope someone kills..." vs "I'm going to kill..."

Under Elonis vs. United States, the threat must be a "true threat" in order to
be prosecutable. The defendant must both truly intend the threat and have the actual ability to carry out the threat.

With regard to ability, some defendants have since argued that since the president is so well-protected, they didn't have an actual ability to carry it
out as Elonis requires. The courts have further clarified that the target's accessibility is not relevant to a true threat analysis, but whether the defendant has weapons, ability to travel to the target, etc. For example, a guy who was serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison had no actual
ability to carry out his threats. Another defendant was ruled unprosecutable for his threats because his confinement to a wheelchair as a quadriplegic meant he had no ability to carry out the threat.

Under the Brandenburg test, incitement is any speech that is intended to
and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

If I say, "You should go kill the president," I'd probably have to say
for it to be an illegal incitement, "I want you to go kill the president
right now."

You'd also have to say it to someone who could reasonably attempt to do it right now. If you both were in Texas when you said it and the president was on
a state visit to Australia, the immediacy requirement of Brandenburg would fail.

Second: Typical inflammatory rhetoric. This would be stuff like "Fight,
fight, fight" or the Sarah Palin map of districts that targeted
particular congressional districts. One of the targeted districts
happened to be Gabby Giffords' district. The Left tried to claim that
because of that map, somebody tried to shoot Gabby Giffords. That's
silly.

Silly for many reasons, not the least of which is that the extensive law enforcement investigation into Jared Loughner-- Giffords' attacker-- showed that he was essentially apolitical, -- and his motive for the attack was delusions due to mental illness.

To this day, former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, along with Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat cabal, not only still insist that Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords because of his right-wing extremist ideology, but that certain Republicans-- Sarah Palin chief among them-- were responsible for lighting his fuse, when in reality, the extensive investigation of Loughner's entire life revealed him to be apolitical with no feelings, positive or negative, for either party, there was no evidence that Loughner ever even saw Palin's web site, and his attack on Giffords was the result of his mental illness, not his political ideology.

And on the rare occasion they make their fake claim and the facts are pointed out to them in real time, what do they say? Well, Schultz says it doesn't matter. Even if Loughner wasn't motivated by far-right politics, he's an avatar for those who are. This is the same excuse they use when someone like Juicy Smollett is caught faking a hate crime: "Well, even if this wasn't real,
the fact that it was so believable speaks to how racist America is." (That was
actually Joy Behar's squirming excuse for her support of Juicy's lie on THE VIEW.)

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that
need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the country
off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them money by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.

Whether Kimmel's "horrible" at his job is a matter of opinion. I watch
his monologues because I think he has the best delivery/writers of the
current late night stable.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:22:53 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 4/29/2026 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote: >>

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that
need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the
country
off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them
money
by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.

Whether Kimmel's "horrible" at his job is a matter of opinion. I watch
his monologues because I think he has the best delivery/writers of the current late night stable.

Oh, so you're the one who watches his show!



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-04-29 18:06:18 +0000, BTR1701 said:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 10:53:44 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:29:41 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote: >>>

Let?s discuss three basic standards when it comes to political speech in >>>> the United States.

First: the illegal. There actually is illegal political speech in the
United States. If you say, "I want to go kill the president of the
United States," that?s illegal. It's either incitement or it's an active >>>> threat. It came out of your mouth. It may be a form of speech, but it is >>>> also an active threat.

But it can't be prosecuted. There's a legal difference between saying you >>> want
something and saying you intend to do it.

"I want to kill..." or "I hope someone kills..." vs "I'm going to kill..." >>>
Under Elonis vs. United States, the threat must be a "true threat" in order >>> to
be prosecutable. The defendant must both truly intend the threat and have the
actual ability to carry out the threat.

So your saying we can't prosecute someone for posting a picture of a
bunch of sea shells that say 86 someone?

Well, I wasn't saying that specifically, but now that you bring it up, yes, such a person could not be successfully prosecuted consistent with the 1st Amendment.

Matt Gaetz is breathing a sigh of relief (not that he'd be the subject
of one of Trump's vindictive prosecutions).

https://www.tmz.com/2026/04/29/james-comey-doj-case-could-fall-apart-because-of-matt-gaetz/



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-04-29 18:43:11 +0000, BTR1701 said:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:22:53 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 4/29/2026 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote: >>>

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that
need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the
country
off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them
money
by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.

Whether Kimmel's "horrible" at his job is a matter of opinion. I watch
his monologues because I think he has the best delivery/writers of the
current late night stable.

Oh, so you're the one who watches his show!

He has 22 million subscribers on YouTube big guy. Trump has 3.97 million.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:52:49 AM PDT, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-29 18:43:11 +0000, BTR1701 said:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:22:53 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>

On 4/29/2026 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that >>>>> need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the >>>> country
off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them >>>> money
by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.

Whether Kimmel's "horrible" at his job is a matter of opinion. I watch >>> his monologues because I think he has the best delivery/writers of the
current late night stable.

Oh, so you're the one who watches his show!

He has 22 million subscribers on YouTube big guy. Trump has 3.97 million.

So you actually believe that YouTube subscribers is a meaningful metric for "president of the United States"?

That 'president' and 'entertainer' are essentially the same thing?

Every time you post, you dig the hole of "super70s IQ" ever deeper.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In article <10stku7$4l8k$2@dont-email.me>, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:52:49 AM PDT, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-29 18:43:11 +0000, BTR1701 said:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:22:53 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On 4/29/2026 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> >>>> wrote:

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that >>>>> need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the >>>> country
off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them >>>> money
by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.

Whether Kimmel's "horrible" at his job is a matter of opinion. I watch >>> his monologues because I think he has the best delivery/writers of the >>> current late night stable.

Oh, so you're the one who watches his show!

He has 22 million subscribers on YouTube big guy. Trump has 3.97 million.

So you actually believe that YouTube subscribers is a meaningful metric for "president of the United States"?

That 'president' and 'entertainer' are essentially the same thing?

In Donald Trump's case, yeah.

Every time you post, you dig the hole of "super70s IQ" ever deeper.

Neener neener, you're mad because I made you look like a fool in front
of God and everybody.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Apr 29, 2026 at 12:24:27 PM PDT, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

In article <10stku7$4l8k$2@dont-email.me>, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:52:49 AM PDT, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid> >> wrote:

On 2026-04-29 18:43:11 +0000, BTR1701 said:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:22:53 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On 4/29/2026 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> >> >>>> wrote:

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that >> >>>>> need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the
country
off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them
money
by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.

Whether Kimmel's "horrible" at his job is a matter of opinion. I watch
his monologues because I think he has the best delivery/writers of the >> >>> current late night stable.

Oh, so you're the one who watches his show!

He has 22 million subscribers on YouTube big guy. Trump has 3.97 million. >>

So you actually believe that YouTube subscribers is a meaningful metric for >> "president of the United States"?

That 'president' and 'entertainer' are essentially the same thing?

In Donald Trump's case, yeah.

Every time you post, you dig the hole of "super70s IQ" ever deeper.

Neener neener, you're mad because I made you look like a fool in front
of God and everybody.

LOL! Whatever helps you get through the day, chief.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 4/29/2026 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:22:53 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 4/29/2026 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that >>>> need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the >>> country
off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them >>> money
by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.

Whether Kimmel's "horrible" at his job is a matter of opinion. I watch
his monologues because I think he has the best delivery/writers of the
current late night stable.

Oh, so you're the one who watches his show!

Well, I'm one of a couple million:

"As of April 2026, Jimmy Kimmel Live! has experienced a significant ratings surge, with total viewers rising 22% year-over-year to 1.91
million and up 20% in the 2026 season-to-date, reaching 1.99 million. Following a high-profile return, the show achieved over 6 million
viewers in late 2025?a decade high?while maintaining strong digital performance with millions of YouTube views."
-Google AI

Like many of those, I suspect, I started watching his show the night he
came back on after being fired, and, in addition to thumbing my nose at censorship, have stayed for the comedic quality.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In article <10sti9u$3q4q$1@dont-email.me>, nobody@nowhere.com wrote:

I watch his monologues because I think he has the best
delivery/writers of the current late night stable.

TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:29:41 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

To this day, former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, along with Nancy >Pelosi and her Democrat cabal, not only still insist that Jared Loughner shot >Gabrielle Giffords because of his right-wing extremist ideology, but that >certain Republicans-- Sarah Palin chief among them-- were responsible for >lighting his fuse, when in reality, the extensive investigation of Loughner's >entire life revealed him to be apolitical with no feelings, positive or >negative, for either party, there was no evidence that Loughner ever even saw >Palin's web site, and his attack on Giffords was the result of his mental >illness, not his political ideology.

Why would anything other than gaining fame be a motive?

After all, everybody here knows the names Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack
Ruby and almost nobody knew these names before 11/22/1963 (I also
remember my grade 2 teacher crying in the hallway that day even though
we were in Canada) though the whole nation did by the next day. (I
also remember Sirhan Bishara Sirhan - which was when I was 12. While
it wasn't an assasination I also remember Charles Manson - and I
assure you I wasn't a news junkie in my early teens and just before)

Frankly I'd be astonished if anybody reading this DIDN'T know the
names of all the assassins mentioned above.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:53:44 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

So your saying we can't prosecute someone for posting a picture of a
bunch of sea shells that say 86 someone?

If I were the prosecutor who tried to prosecute you for that you would
just claim to be a huge fan on Don Adams and "Get Smart"!

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:57:48 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Thank you for explaining the decision. When someone is charged with a
threat, we often hear prosecutors state weapons procured and that the >perpetrator had travelled, so those are necessary elements of the crime.

I disagree on the last one - if Lee Harvey Oswald had lived in the
same building as the Texas Book Repository and had just taken an
elevator to whichever floor he shot from would he be less culpable?

Surely you're not saying that in this case he would have been innocent
of killing JFK.

I live on a major bus route - think of all the 'fun' I could have
laying a mine on the road... (yes I'm being silly but mandating having travelled to be part of the requirement for murder is sillier yet)

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Apr 29, 2026 at 12:34:50 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 4/29/2026 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:22:53 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>

On 4/29/2026 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> >>>> wrote:

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that >>>>> need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the >>>> country
off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them >>>> money
by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.

Whether Kimmel's "horrible" at his job is a matter of opinion. I watch >>> his monologues because I think he has the best delivery/writers of the
current late night stable.

Oh, so you're the one who watches his show!

Well, I'm one of a couple million:

"As of April 2026, Jimmy Kimmel Live! has experienced a significant ratings surge, with total viewers rising 22% year-over-year to 1.91
million and up 20% in the 2026 season-to-date, reaching 1.99 million. Following a high-profile return, the show achieved over 6 million
viewers in late 2025?a decade high?while maintaining strong digital performance with millions of YouTube views."
-Google AI

Like many of those, I suspect, I started watching his show the night he
came back on after being fired, and, in addition to thumbing my nose at censorship, have stayed for the comedic quality.

Kimmel really ought to just leave late night and take his rightful place
around the table at THE VIEW with all the other hysterical woke women.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 5/3/2026 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 12:34:50 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 4/29/2026 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 11:22:53 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 4/29/2026 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 29, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> >>>>> wrote:

So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job?

If we?re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that >>>>>> need to be called out, that should have social consequences

He should lose his job because he's horrible at it, he pisses half the
country
off at his bosses at ABC/Disney, and most importantly, he's losing them
money
by the truckload.

He should not lose his job due to government threats.

Whether Kimmel's "horrible" at his job is a matter of opinion. I watch >>>> his monologues because I think he has the best delivery/writers of the >>>> current late night stable.

Oh, so you're the one who watches his show!

Well, I'm one of a couple million:

"As of April 2026, Jimmy Kimmel Live! has experienced a significant
ratings surge, with total viewers rising 22% year-over-year to 1.91
million and up 20% in the 2026 season-to-date, reaching 1.99 million.
Following a high-profile return, the show achieved over 6 million
viewers in late 2025?a decade high?while maintaining strong digital
performance with millions of YouTube views."
-Google AI

Like many of those, I suspect, I started watching his show the night he
came back on after being fired, and, in addition to thumbing my nose at
censorship, have stayed for the comedic quality.

Kimmel really ought to just leave late night and take his rightful place around the table at THE VIEW with all the other hysterical woke women.

They feign wisdom. Kimmel doesn't. He merely ridicules Trump. It's a
public service.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:57:48 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

Thank you for explaining the decision. When someone is charged with a >>threat, we often hear prosecutors state weapons procured and that the >>perpetrator had travelled, so those are necessary elements of the crime.

I disagree on the last one - if Lee Harvey Oswald had lived in the
same building as the Texas Book Repository and had just taken an
elevator to whichever floor he shot from would he be less culpable?

Surely you're not saying that in this case he would have been innocent
of killing JFK.

I live on a major bus route - think of all the 'fun' I could have
laying a mine on the road... (yes I'm being silly but mandating having >travelled to be part of the requirement for murder is sillier yet)

You've gone down one of your bizarre tangents. The discussion concerned
whether making a threat could be charged as a crime, which is a separate
crime than attempted murder or first-degree murder.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Verily, in article <10t8b9v$35sjn$1@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.com deliver unto us this message:

Kimmel really ought to just leave late night and take his rightful place around the table at THE VIEW with all the other hysterical woke women.

LOL.

I don't understand how The View stays on. Who is watching this?

--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Verily, in article <10t8gjp$37kg5$1@dont-email.me>, did
nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:

They feign wisdom. Kimmel doesn't. He merely ridicules Trump. It's a public service.

It's a living, at least.

--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)