The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: SVPete on September 22, 2025, 09:21:04 AM
-
CNN Host: You Know, Maybe We Should Admit to Censoring People
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2025/09/22/cnn-host-you-know-maybe-we-should-admit-to-censoring-people-n3807047 (https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2025/09/22/cnn-host-you-know-maybe-we-should-admit-to-censoring-people-n3807047)
Give Abby Phillip some credit, though, for progress. Her Saturday morning panel show discussed Jimmy Kimmel's suspension, and Kmele Foster suggested that progressives need to acknowledge their role in censoring their political opponents for, oh, years. Phillip immediately agreed and extended the argument (via Twitchy):
FOSTER: This is the ideal argument for limited government. There used to be conservatives in this country, a libertarian. I still believe in that. And look, I actually do want to call out something I heard earlier this week Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat having a conversation. And there was this moment where Ezra says, you know, I probably needed to acknowledge back a couple of years ago that we were a little too censorious, that the left was actually interested in kind of intimidating --
PHILLIP: I think that's something more liberals should say.
FOSTER: I think it would help.
PHILLIP: They should acknowledge, not just in passing, but actively acknowledge where things went wrong. That's the only way to move forward.
FOSTER: Agreed.
PHILLIP: I think, in a way, because otherwise -- ALLISON: What would we acknowledge?
PHILLIP: I think you have to acknowledge that there is a -- listen, cancel culture was a thing. OK, it was actually a thing. And it's not it's not just enough to say, well, my cancel culture was fine, but yours is wrong. There has to be an acknowledgment that, yes, now I think everybody understands what free speech really looks like and what it means. And then you have to apply that thinking to what was happening four or five or six years ago and say something.
Close, but the vague they/we needs to be, simply, "We". There are other vaguenesses that they are short of clarity and honest full admissions.
-
When Snopes gives the context to your lie:
Charlie Kirk called George Floyd a 'scumbag.' Here's the full quote
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/charlie-kirk-called-george-floyd-a-scumbag-here-s-the-full-quote/ar-AA1N3QSz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/charlie-kirk-called-george-floyd-a-scumbag-here-s-the-full-quote/ar-AA1N3QSz)
Rating:
True (About this rating?)
Context:
Kirk made the statement in reference to Floyd's alleged criminal history and the circumstances surrounding his death. Kirk's exact words were: "I am also going to offer some context and some nuance about the death of George Floyd that no one dares to say out loud. Which is that this guy was a scumbag. Now, does that mean he deserves to die? That's two totally different things — of course not."
In the days following Charlie Kirk's assassination in September 2025, social media was flooded with alleged quotes from the conservative activist — including a wildly shared claim that he once called George Floyd a "scumbag."
Snopes readers emailed and searched our website about the purported quote involving Floyd, the Black man who died while in a chokehold by a white police officer in May 2020, prompting protests against racism in policing worldwide.
"George Floyd was a father too and Charlie Kirk called him a 'scumbag,'" read one X post (archived) with over 19 million views.
A quote out of context is a pretext.
-
WaPo Wonders: Why All That Security for a Funeral?
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2025/09/22/wapo-wonders-why-all-that-security-for-a-funeral-n3807050 (https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2025/09/22/wapo-wonders-why-all-that-security-for-a-funeral-n3807050)
Let's recap, shall we? Fourteen months ago, Donald Trump got shot and Corey Comperatore got killed by an assassin in Butler County, PA. A few weeks later, another assassin got captured on Trump's Florida golf course. Just this week, people have fired shots over political issues more than once, and oh by the way, the event yesterday memorialized someone who'd been assassinated for his politics.
With all of that as background, plus the fact that both the President and Vice President would be participating in the event, the Washington Post cast a skeptical eye on the expense ahead of the event:
My emphasis. Is the WashPost this stupid? Or are they disappointed the heavy security discouraged more assassination attempts?
-
WaPo Wonders: Why All That Security for a Funeral?
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2025/09/22/wapo-wonders-why-all-that-security-for-a-funeral-n3807050 (https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2025/09/22/wapo-wonders-why-all-that-security-for-a-funeral-n3807050)
My emphasis. Is the WashPost this stupid? Or are they disappointed the heavy security discouraged more assassination attempts?
Yes.