SectionC3

So whats the rule? Just paste it here and prove me wrong.

Did you get that sentence from the hard page toddler book you’re reading on lunch? Run, Spot, run! Look at you go!

What’s the rule? Just find it instead of wasting all of this time demonstrating you haven’t found it.

“Me more smrt then stoopid libz!” AlBundy Man

“I though you were dumb.” LOL.

Maybe, just maybe, you want to chill on calling others dumb.

Not the rule. Still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

This is all gibberish. You claim that an FCC reg as violated that considers “integrity,” and all I’ve asked you to do is identify the reg. You can’t or won’t do that, and then you spread a lie by some Twitter guy. So, by your logic, you would be removed from TBD if it was a public broadcaster because, like, “integrity.” By a private actor. Not by the government. And after trying to overthrow the government. Prove me wrong. Me speech. Not free speech. And you call yourself a conservative. You don’t even know what the word means. Not true. There’s a protocol for matters of this nature that the FCC did not follow. Prove me wrong.

It wasn’t a lie. It’s an opinion. And parts of MAGA are morally culpable. Prove me wrong.

Why did the FCC threaten ABC? It’s me speech they want. Not free speech. The FCC didn’t threaten licenses there. HUGE difference.

Got that rule yet?

Not making the play on Tua when he had him dead to rights changes the game.

He got run over at the goal line and I have no idea what happened on the long throw to Hill. How that ball hangs up there forever and one of the shortest guys in the field nearly comes down with it between two DBs including a safety with the play more or less in front of him is beyond me.

Looked to me in the stadium like nobody was open. My beef tonight was going way too slow in the second half. I would have gone tempo a bit simply to break the malaise. Also maybe throw the ball on first down a little more frequently.

Still no rule. Probably because you don’t even know what it is. Black face is bad, for sure. But did it happen on air? That’s the issue here.

No, you didn't. You posted an advisory. Go in the CFR (assuming you know what that is) and find the rule(s). Have at it.

Let's not forget Barack the Magic *****. That's another one from the greatest hits. No FCC involvement there.

At this juncture, that's not provable. And define "radicalized." Maybe he was radicalized by listening to nonsense at his parents' house. The whole thing is absurd. I don't really care that ABC got rid of Kimmel. I care that the friggin FCC threatened the license over something like this. It's asinine. I'm glad you mentioned Rush. He said a lot of nasty stuff. "Feminazi" seems to ring a bell. But nobody went after the licenses of the affiliates like this.

Nothing that you highlighted is an insult. Keep looking for those FCC rules. This is really bad. That's my thought. Really, really bad.

About the various infirmities? The best friends you have are the ones who are honest with you.

Ha! "Pushing a narrative." Another MAGA trope. Find the rule and perform the analysis. Until then, you're just bloviating. You know why they suspended the guy? Because it's cheaper and easier than fighting the President of the United States leveraging the powers of government to interfere with this business. If you can't recognize how dangerous this is, then I'm sorry for you. Hoax. You like to insult people, and I just remind you of your various infirmities. Context is bit different. FCC = leveraged against ABC. $788 million verdict = problem for Tucker's employer.

How is this a truth nuke? This is, how shall I put this, obvious to anyone with any involvement in the biz. The question is whether the FCC is following its own rules in what I understand to be the threat of license revocation. Using the Charlie Kirk model, prove me wrong. It's not unique. Another instance in which you're wrong.

What's the premise behind lead in? People don't change the channel. Same concept applies to the night shows. Face it, you got schooled. At least this time you didn't rely on insults. That's a step in the right direction.

That's a consumer guide. Not a rule. Keep trying. And even if it represents the rule, good luck meeting those elements. Did Kimmel know the info to be false? Hardly. Nobody really knows right now. And what's the public harm? Beats me. So how could that harm be substantial? Good luck with that one counselor. Then let's take it a step further. Say, in this bizzaro world of 2025 that the elements are met, what's the remedy? Can you put a finger on that one? I'm gonna take a whack a this and say it is patently absurd to conclude that this violation would result in forfeiture of a license/licenses.

Wrong. All the way around. Nice insults, by the way. You can always tell who has lost the argument when the insults arrive on scene.