Nicole Scherzinger doubling down on the MAGA Train — Page 13

The Bandstand said: "Did they ban Boris?"

I do think they banned Boris when he expressed a full-throated endorsement of the Sandy Hook denialism conspiracy theory. I think a lot of us reported him during the brief period before that post was removed.

kdogg36 said: "I think a lot of us reported him during the brief period before that post was removed."

You couldn't just tell him what you thought or disagreed with?

This elimination urge will never be a solution to anything in life.

The comments for which Boris was apparently banned have been adjudicated as defamatory in a court of law. It is no surprise that a private message board would not want to host someone who posts defamatory comments, and it's certainly not a violation of free speech.

Seb28 said: "kdogg36 said: "I think a lot of us reported him during the brief period before that post was removed."

You couldn't just tell him what you thought or disagreed with?

This elimination urge will never be a solution to anything in life."

The elimination of a repulsive Sandy Hook lie is more than welcome, pig.

Seb, you spread lies too. Recently you said King Charles covers up for radical Islamists wishing for the UK to be under Sharia Law. To cite one example.

By your own logic… shouldn't you be banned from BroadwayWorld?

OOPS Wrong thread, but I guess it fits here too

Updated On: 9/21/25 at 04:52 PM

Seb28 said: "kdogg36 said: "I think a lot of us reported him during the brief period before that post was removed."

You couldn't just tell him what you thought or disagreed with?

This elimination urge will never be a solution to anything in life."

He was literally spreading dangerous and completely false information. That kind of behavior should have a zero tolerance rule on this board. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with him. He was disseminating false information.

Also if “elimination” isn’t a “solution”, why are you cheering the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel on this very board…? You are impossibly contradictory.

Updated On: 9/21/25 at 05:27 PM

Seb28 said: "kdogg36 said: "To me, that's a little like saying "he beats his wife and kids, but I enjoy playing pool with him at the bar, so it's a pity if our friends told him to go **** off.""

Are you comparing "having an opinion" with "beating your wife and kids" now? To me the elimination/kicking of people you don't agree with is more in line with the latter."

So flat out saying that the Sandy Hook shooting was faked and staged is now “an opinion”? Got it.

Seb28 said: "The reason Kirk was slaughtered is because we let young adults being indoctrinated with terrorist mindsets. The same young adults Kirk was trying to save.”

Oh, you’re like - CRAZY, crazy. Like…completely ignoring and/or detached from reality. Thanks for confirming.


Block.

Updated On: 9/23/25 at 06:23 PM

Seb28 said: "I am against cancellation over speech. Free speech should always be protected. Deliberately telling lies on tv about the motives of the terroristor expressing support for murdering someone over free speech is not part of that. That is taking part in terrorism. Because it lays the foundation for approving these deeds. That needs to be addressed. It is about morals. We need to find a way to bring them back into the country. Yes, by allowing free speech. But also by understanding that laying the basis for terrorism is not free speech. The reason Kirk was slaughtered is because we let young adults being indoctrinated with terrorist mindsets. The same young adults Kirk was trying to save.

And even if you are unable to grasp this difference, making more noise about a canceled tv show than overa killing because of "free speech"is impossibly contradictory in itself too."

Can you highlight exactly what lie Jimmy Kimmel told? Or was he describing the words of everyone surrounding the shooter and the victim in the hours following? Because we all know it's the latter outside of people who are approaching this from a position of bad faith because dear leader told them to.

So please, explain exactly what he said that at all was about the shooter and the victim as opposed to the reaction to the shooting.

TheatreFan4 said: "Seb28 said: "I am against cancellation over speech. Free speech should always be protected. Deliberately telling lies on tv about the motives of the terroristor expressing support for murdering someone over free speech is not part of that. That is taking part in terrorism. Because it lays the foundation for approving these deeds. That needs to be addressed. It is about morals. We need to find a way to bring them back into the country. Yes, by allowing free speech. But also by understanding that laying the basis for terrorism is not free speech. The reason Kirk was slaughtered is because we let young adults being indoctrinated with terrorist mindsets. The same young adults Kirk was trying to save.

And even if you are unable to grasp this difference, making more noise about a canceled tv show than overa killing because of "free speech"is impossibly contradictory in itself too."

Can you highlight exactly what lie Jimmy Kimmel told? Or was he describing the words of everyone surrounding the shooter and the victim in the hours following? Because we all know it's the latter outside of people who are approaching this from a position of bad faith because dear leader told them to.

So please, explain exactly what he said that at all was about the shooter and the victim as opposed to the reaction to the shooting."

People were mentioning the facts that the authorities presented, such as the bullet inscriptions and what his parents, friends and teachers explained about his radicalization to the left since a year, about his trans-partner, which all pointed in the same direction. Kimmel made up that the right was “trying to make the shooter look like any other than one of their own”, which is false. Because they were merely mentioning facts. So that was a wrong accusation. Another problem with what he said is that he presented it in a way as if it was very much possible that he was one of their own (of the right). With this grammar he was making a connection that didn’t exist, and that was very misleading given the facts that were already presented by the authorities. He presented it as if it was a relevant possibility. As if the facts of the authorities were not true. Both things are unacceptable.

Jimmy Kimmel has seemingly retracted his claim that he was trying to blame anyone in particular for the shooting. So I think it's probably time to move on, he has clarified his statement and lesson learned...