September 27, 2025 • 35 mins
In this episode, Billy Dees offers his unfiltered commentary on the unfolding Jimmy Kimmel controversy. Billy digs into the multiple layers of the debate—broadcast standards, FCC regulations, and the often-misunderstood boundaries of free speech.
The episode also takes a serious look at the disturbing online reactions surrounding the Charlie Kirk tragedy, where celebration overshadowed compassion.
Billy ties it all together with a critical point: when people choose sides based solely on personalities rather than principles, society risks setting dangerous precedents.
Tune in for a thoughtful and balanced perspective on issues that cut to the core of media, speech, and public discourse.
You can find Billy Dees on X https://x.com/BillyDees
The episode also takes a serious look at the disturbing online reactions surrounding the Charlie Kirk tragedy, where celebration overshadowed compassion.
Billy ties it all together with a critical point: when people choose sides based solely on personalities rather than principles, society risks setting dangerous precedents.
Tune in for a thoughtful and balanced perspective on issues that cut to the core of media, speech, and public discourse.
You can find Billy Dees on X https://x.com/BillyDees
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You are listening to The Billy D's Podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
All right, Well, hello everyone, and welcome to The Billy
D's Podcast. As always, I am absolutely thrilled that you
are here. If you've never checked us out before. We
are primarily an interview and a commentary based podcast. Today
I will be commentating, so I guess you could say
this is going to be a commentary episode. I'm going
(00:31):
to center around this whole Jimmy Kimmel situation, some of
the confusion about free speech in regard to this, and
in general, the reactions online to what happened with Charlie Kirk,
which well we'll get into that. They were very disappointing,
(00:51):
some of these horrible reactions, and we're going to get
into that. Last week I touched quite extend on the
Jimmy Kimmel situation, and since then, of course he's been reinstated,
he's back on the air. The various media companies that
were involved with some of the affiliates, they're either going
(01:11):
to put him back on or he already is. So
a lot has happened in the last week. But nonetheless,
you know, I've done some controversial topics over the years.
I didn't believe that last week's episode was really that
hot in terms of controversy. But for whatever reason, I
(01:32):
got more negative comments than what I usually get when
I tackling more controversial topic. A lot of the people
that normally are in step with what we talk about
here on the program were on Jimmy Kimmel's side, so
to speak, or at least they were in principle. And
(01:52):
I'll get into that in just a moment here. Again,
if you are new, I want you to know that
typically I do not take a quote unquote side. I
was never a yeah yeah yeah Trump person. Never was that,
And lately I would have to say I lean certainly
more to the right than I do the left. But
(02:13):
I don't believe that being on a team is a
good idea. And I've got to tell you a lot
of what happened here in the last week with me
and online and throughout the media has to do with
people being on a team. The people that were mad
at me was because I picked on somebody who was
(02:34):
on their team more so than objectively checking things out.
And I'm going to try to go through some of that.
I will be very honest and forthright with you. If
you are a Jimmy Kimmel fan and you feel that
he is a victim. You probably won't like this episode
that much, but I would ask you to step out
(02:57):
of that zone. Step out of that well. Jimmy Kimmel
on my team, he makes fun of the guy I
don't like. Try to step out of that zone. What
I try to do is go a place or places
where other points of view generally steered to the right
or to the left. I try to cover some ground
here that gives the subject more nuance and so on.
(03:20):
So kind of stay with me on this. One of
the comments that I got quite a bit on social
media aimed at me was that I just didn't get it.
I just didn't get the point of why they were
upset about Jimmy Kimmel because I went through this whole
rant about if he was really that popular, he could
(03:41):
you know, there's other forms of media that are available now,
including the one that I am on, and people like
Tucker Carlson and all these other people have done very
very well away from traditional media, and that includes Glenn
Beck and a lot of other people. They became bigger
than what they or before. And here again the response
(04:04):
was well, you just don't get the point though, about
what happened to them. So all right, fine, I just
didn't get the point. First of all, I covered the
point pretty thoroughly in the last episode. But what happens
is people hear what they want to hear, and a
lot of times they go off of clips from the show,
or a lot of times I get quoted on other
podcasts or blogs or whatever. So people on the strength
of that will react. And I understand that I'm probably
(04:26):
guilty of that as well. But anyway, let me try
to go into this as thoroughly as I possibly can.
There is a difference from what you might call free speech,
which basically, in a nutshell, without getting into a lot
of detail, here has to do with governmental censorship, especially
(04:46):
when you are criticizing the government. The whole idea is
that people can criticize their government without disappearing in the
middle of the night or what have you. And when
we're talking broadcast, this is a little a little different
because there are what are called broadcast standards and that
(05:07):
can vary from one market to another, and then there's
FCC regulations. And here again the premise is is that
the airwaves belong to the people. And the idea is
is that these airways have to serve the common good,
excuse me, the common good. So if you are constantly
(05:29):
slanting things, then that's not the common good. And the
other thing is with broadcast is you usually have advertisers
that you have to appease. You have to make sure
they're happy. You're beholden to these advertisers because they are
the people that are keeping you on the air. So
there's a lot of dynamics here to broadcast. At one time,
(05:51):
back in the nineteen fifties, let's say part of the
nineteen sixties, news and points of view were actually considered
a public service, and broadcast networks did these things begrudgingly
because the real money was on talk shows like I
Love Lucy and all this people falling down and getting
(06:13):
a pie in the face. These were the things that
brought in advertising dollars. And to have to present the news,
that was a chore they had to do to serve
the common good. And before news and political opinion became
a business, this was something that was done pretty objectively. Okay,
(06:33):
well times have changed. I for one, in years past,
back in the nineteen nineties, I produced a radio ad
that had the sound effect of a plane crashing, and
this advertisement was a parody. I was kind of shooting
(06:54):
for the airplane movies, remember the airplane movies that parodied
the playe disaster movies, And it was it was done
in good humor, in my opinion, and I wish I
would have kept that ad. That was back in the
days of tape, and I lost track of that advertisement.
But what happened is with broadcast standards. Interestingly, hundreds, if
(07:20):
not thousands of people heard that ad, and all the
feedback that I got was it was funny, it was hysterical.
The person that I produced the ad for told me
that that was the most successful ad that they ran.
But the manager of the station, who is responsible for
the broadcast standards, if the FCC is going to come
(07:42):
down on this station, he's the person who has to
bear the brunt of it. He didn't find the humor
in this ad at all. He was afraid that people
were going to take this as some literal depiction of
a tragic event. And of course, here again the entire
ad was clearly a parody. And in my opinion what
(08:02):
happened was this was a guy and this guy. You know,
he had about a size twenty two waist. He looked
like a dying tree. He had this giant beard that
probably had a size thirty five. And if you checked
the Wikipedia or the online dictionary under prick, his image
(08:26):
was probably there. This was a radio station in Akron,
Ohio at the time, and that radio station doesn't exist anymore.
And wherever this guy is now, he's probably still a prick.
I mean, that's just the long and the short of it.
He decided that he was going to exert his power
over me and make me pull that at which I
(08:47):
had to do. Now Here Again, this was a broadcast
standard that they wanted to maintain. This has nothing to
do with free speech and what Jimmy Kimmel said and
a lot of people's estimation did not meet a broadcast standard.
I'm not even sure that this was technically a free
(09:10):
speech issue. I know a lot of people have insinuated
that the Trump administration exerted something directly over this, and
there was talk that the FCC might have been involved.
I have not been able to draw a direct connection
to that. I would certainly hope that is not the case.
(09:31):
For whatever reason. I just don't feel that this was
something worth meddling in now. Trump here again, I'm not
necessarily a pro Trump person. Trump fueled some speculation about
this because he ran his mouth, and this is something
that he probably should have stayed away from because all
he did was fuel speculation that he had something to
(09:53):
do with it. But I'm going to work under the
assumption that the federal government had very little to do
with this. This had to do with broadcast standards. And
here again, there was a number of different companies involved
in putting Jimmy Kimmel on the air, and it also
had to do with broadcast standards, inter intermingling with advertisers.
(10:16):
Are advertisers happy about what happened here? That is the
real issue. Now, if you're going to tell me that
he was taken off for no good reason, there's a
number of people who got involved with broadcast standards, including myself,
who had to take things off the air or were
(10:36):
taken off the air for no good reason. One of
them was Megan Kelly. Megan Kelly asked a question, asked
a question that was deemed too bad for broadcast standards
and was taken off the air. A lot of these
people that are coming at me so concerned about Jimmy
(10:57):
Kimmel did say anything about Megan Kelly, that's because she
is not on their team. Tucker Carlson is another one.
And you talk about ratings. He ruled the time slot
he was in, he ruled it. He not only ruled
it in terms of news, but he ruled it on
other things. If memory serves me correctly, there were certain
(11:21):
nights where his ratings beat the NBA playoffs those years.
So this wasn't ratings here again, he just said something
that his wheelhouse didn't like and he was taken off. Now,
a lot of these people that came at me about
Jimmy Kimmel, where were they when this happened to Tucker Carlson.
(11:41):
As a matter of fact, what did Jimmy Kimmel say
about Tucker Carlson?
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Has severed bow ties with Tucker Carlson after all these years,
they are parting ways, which means he was fired. I mean,
that's really what parting ways?
Speaker 2 (11:59):
What a shock?
Speaker 1 (12:00):
I mean, what an absolutely delightful shock this is.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yeah, he sounds like he was all bereaved over the
idea that Tucker Caulson was removed or some broadcast standards
violation by some entity. But anyway, let's move on. I
know a lot of people are still worried about the
possible connection between a free speech violation with the FCC. Okay,
(12:28):
I don't know if there was, like I said before,
but I do know that there have been attempts by
the federal government to interfere with free speech online. As
a matter of fact, there's very little doubt about this.
But again, it didn't happen to the person on your team,
so you weren't that worried about it. Let's start with
(12:48):
Marcus Zuckerberg. Marca Zuckerberg stated that the Biden administration pressured Meta,
which is Facebook's parent company, to censor certain content during
the covideen pandemic. He made these remarks in a letter
to the House Judiciary Committee and during an appearance on
(13:09):
Joe Rogan.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
They pushed us super hard to take down things that
were honestly were true, right, I mean they basically pushed
us and said, you know, anything that says that vaccines
might have side effects, you basically need to take down.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
All right. That doesn't sound very free speech, ye now
does it? And what happened with metaw was the only case.
Investigative journalist Matt Tayebi, who is absolutely fantastic by the way,
produced the Twitter files and what this did was reveal
how the company handled content moderation. Content to moderate moderation,
(13:52):
that's an interesting term. Now, this was before Elon must
took it over, and this was regarding a couple of
cases in particular. Number one was probably the Hunter Biden
laptop story, and the other one was the suspension of
the then former President Donald Trump. Here again, this was
back when it was Twitter, and a lot of the
(14:13):
people that are crying about what happened with Jimmy Kimmel
felt that this was a great thing. And here again
I want to be very clear on this. When you
start judging situations based upon the people involved, are they
on your team or are they not on your team?
For one, first and foremost, you are setting yourself up
(14:34):
to be manipulated, because once you are firmly on a team,
you'll do whatever the coach says. And there's a lot
of people out there who are just following what the
coach says, they're not really following what's happening on the
entire field with the other team. And other people involved.
(14:54):
So that's my caution there. And the other thing is
is you have to be very careful about setting these
press It's one thing to laugh when somebody you don't
like is taking off of something, some platform or something,
but you're setting a precedent for a time, and it's
going to happen to you, and that's what people forget
(15:15):
in all of this. But we'll move on one of
the things that I heard in terms of the comments
that were sent my way when I talked about the
last episode and I talked about some of the online
celebrations for lack of a better term, over what happened
to Charlie Kirk, and a lot of people said, oh,
(15:35):
where are these celebrations. I haven't seen one. Well, I'll
tell you what. Let's let's do a quick sampling here,
shall we. Hey, maga, how bad does it hurt to
Jimmy Kimmel's back? But you guys can't get your person back.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Charlie Kirk family, did you see all that blood that
came out of his body. I'm not saying that violence
isn't the way everyone's.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
Saying that we are Charlie Kirk. Y'all sound like y'all
want to be the same fate he met. We are,
Charlie Kirk, you can meet the same faits it is.
Speaker 6 (16:19):
Let's all join hands and bow our heads in thoughts
and prayers for Charlie Kirk. Thoughts and prayers for Charlie
Kerk thoughts and press thoughts and prayers.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
There are some real sweethearts. And that reel wasn't there.
And believe me, I'm just scratching the surface. There's plenty more.
You get the idea on the heels of that. I
wanted to point out something about Charlie Kirk as we
go into exactly what Jimmy Kimmel said that caused the ruckus.
Charlie Kirk went out, i would say, very bravely into
(16:59):
the public to gauge people, whether it be at college
campuses or what have you. And his life was under threat.
That is why he had the bulletproof vest, that is
why he had the security details. He was constantly being threatened.
But his faith was a motivator and so were the
things that he believed in. And I admire that. Now.
(17:21):
I'm not particularly a person who practices Christian principles to
say the least, but I can admire someone like that
who feels what they believe in is so strong that
they are willing to go out and risk their life. Now,
Jimmy Kimmel, by contrast, is in a television studio that
(17:43):
has security. He has an audience that likes him and
is very friendly to him and laughs at his every
little quip. And he lives in a community that is
very exclusive. So a lot of the ideals that he expouses,
you know, for all of the average people out there,
(18:05):
the people have to lock their doors at night. He's
not really living their truth. He's not really putting himself
out there, certainly not the way Charlie Kirk did. And
what I would say here and here again, reflecting on
the videos and the clips that we just heard, there's
(18:27):
nothing more that cowards like than the downfall of the brave.
Cowards rejoice when the brave fall. I'm just putting that
out there because you can hear a certain liveliness to
(18:48):
one's words. Here is Jimmy Kimmel. This was the remark
that got him in trouble when he talked about the
affiliation that the shooter had. We hit some new.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Lows over the weekend with the Magga gang desperately trying
to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything
other than one of them, and everything they can to
score political points from it.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Yes, there, it is his opposition. As it were. We're
doing everything they can to characterize this person as something
other than their own. What did the official accounts of
this say?
Speaker 7 (19:28):
Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so,
Robinson had become more political and had started to lean
more to the left, becoming more pro gay and trance
writes Oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate,
a biological male who was transitioning genders.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Now, I want to be clear here, I don't like
it when the actions of a maniac is assigned to
a particular group for political reasons. There is a certain relevance.
Let's say, for example, when a white Christian goes out
and does something horrible, It's important to understand what group
(20:12):
this person belonged to, and is there something going on
in this group that could be encouraging this behavior. So
I believe it is relevant, But to just slap a
label on an entire political group and call them out
for the actions of a maniac I feel is wrong. Nonetheless,
(20:32):
this was a clear misrepresentation of the facts here, and
he did it in a way that was very glib,
and the timing was horrible. This was right when the
wounds of a nation for so many people that loved
and admired Charlie Kirk were open. The timing of this
(20:56):
was particularly bad. Okay, With that being said, here again,
he got into some broadcast standards issues, and I'm sure
the advertisers were nervous. The different broadcast companies besides ABC
were possibly nervous as well, and some of them on
their own decided to pull his programming until this got resolved.
(21:20):
All right. With that being said, when he comes back,
we all knew that there would be a huge spike
in ratings, and that's exactly what happened. I've heard various
things that don't have any solid ratings numbers, but the
general feeling is is that a lot of people tuned
(21:40):
in to Jimmy Kimmel to hear what he was going
to say after he was reinstated back on ABC with
his program. And for all the people that are going
to tell me how badly he was treated, let me
remind you that he benefited from this. He got a
(22:02):
ratings spike, so much so that a lot of people
feel that his comments were orchestrated because he got a
huge ratings boost from this. The Jimmy Kimmel Show became
relevant again because of this incident. So not only was
he not a victim, not only was he not picked
on under some the guys of free speech, he actually
(22:26):
benefited from the assassination of Charlie Kirk. So lots of
people tune into his program to hear what he's got
to say, and this is a part of it.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
But I do want to make something clear because it's
important to me as a human and that is you
understand that it was never my intention to make light
of the murder of a young man.
Speaker 8 (22:51):
I don't think there's only being funny about it. I
posted a message on Instagram Raama the Daves killed, sending
love to his family and asking for compassion, and I
meant it and I still do. Nor was it my
intention to blame any specific group for the actions of
what it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
We are going to contrast what he just said there
with what he said originally and here again specific to
the points that really triggered this in just a moment.
But I want to point something else out. Like I
said earlier, cowards often rejoice when the brave fall, And
when they rejoice and they get themselves in a little
(23:34):
trouble over it, they don't really apologize. What they do, though,
is they extole the virtues of forgiveness, hoping that some
of it will spill onto them.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
A moment over the weekend, a very beautiful moment.
Speaker 8 (23:52):
I don't know if he saw this.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
On Sunday, Erica Kirk forgave the man who shot her husband.
Speaker 8 (23:58):
She forgave him. That is an example we should follow.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Yes, forgiveness is something that we should all learn to do. Now.
I'm not apologizing, of course, but forgiveness is something that
all of you can learn how to do. And when
I extol the virtues of forgiveness, I'm really hoping some
(24:24):
of that spills onto me. Even though I really didn't
apologize for anything. That's basically what you heard there. Now,
I got to be honest with you. Like I said,
I'm not the world's greatest Christian. If I was, Erica Kirk,
I don't know if I could forgive the shooter. I
probably couldn't. And I got to tell you if Jimmy
(24:44):
Kimmel is hoping that through osmosis or his you know,
extolling these virtues of forgiveness, that some of that is
going to trickle down onto him as far as I
am concerned, No, no, no, he can take his virtues
(25:06):
of forgiveness and he can shove him right up his ass. Now,
as we move forward here, let's contrast what he said
versus what he said he said, and I got them
separated by my famous little woshes.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the
Magagank desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie
Kirk is anything other than one of them and everything
they can to score political points from it.
Speaker 8 (25:38):
Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group
for the actions of what it was obviously a deeply
disturbed individual. Nor was it my intention to blame any
specific group for the actions of what it was obviously
a deeply disturbed individual. With the Magagank desperately trying to
characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything than
(26:00):
one of them, and everything they can to score political
points from it.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Oh and by the way, remember the video, the infamous
video of the lady very sarcastically raising up thoughts and
prayers for Charlie Kirk. She went on her own victim
rant here.
Speaker 6 (26:18):
Recently, I posted a follow up video expressing why I
felt the way I did, and even ended with I
hope Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery and goes on
to become a gun violence advocate. Since if you have
watched any of the videos on my page, you would
know I stand firmly on not being violent and that
violence is not the way we are going to fix
(26:38):
things in this country. Well, since I posted those two videos,
my life has been completely turned upside down and I
have been thrown into what I can only explain as
literal hell.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I want to be as clear as I can on
this point. Apparently this young lady was threatened, and that
is complete and total bullshit. Nobody deserves that, not even
Jimmy Kimmel deserves that. I've been threatened because of the
podcast and years ago when I was a disc jockey,
I was threatened because I played music people didn't like.
And anybody who's been on the receiving end of that
(27:11):
kind of madness knows that nobody deserves that. Now there's
different levels to how we communicate, and here again with
Jimmy Kimmel, it was through the air. And there's first
broadcast endards, which can vary depending on the broadcast company.
I've worked for radio stations that you could get away
with a lot. I've worked for other radio stations where
(27:32):
you couldn't. And here again, they're ultimately accountable to the FCC,
so you have to give them some latitude in terms
of how they want to protect themselves. There's also advertisers. Now,
advertisers can say hey, that's not for me and pull
the plug. And broadcast, for the most part, is almost
entirely funded by advertising. So there's these components there. I
(27:54):
am against governmental censorship, no matter who the president is,
all right, And I want to also state this, some
of these celebrations about Charlie Kirk, in my opinion, are
dangerously close to being on thin ice when it comes
to free speech provisions, because free speech provisions do not
(28:18):
allow for celebrating or wishing harm on someone. And when
you celebrate a violent act that was done to someone
and you say I'm okay with this. I'm happy about
this because this person stood for A B and C.
What you have just done is paint a target on
(28:39):
the back of anybody who stands for A B and C.
So you have to be very careful of that. But
with the exception of that type of thing, I am
a free speech absolutist, and I do believe that you
have the right in terms of free speech to run
your mouth and be an asshole, just like this young
lady did, and just like Jimmy Kimmel did. Now Jimmy
(29:01):
Kimmel's getting praised for it. He's benefiting from the horrible
thing that happened to Charlie Kirk. I do not believe
that the current spike. I did predict a spike in
ratings for him as he became relevant again through all
of this controversy and people would tune in to hear
what he has had to say, and that did happen. Now,
(29:22):
how long that is going to be sustained is another thing.
It's going to be a couple weeks before the baseline
of his ratings starts to level off, and we can
kind of make a determination. Was this ultimately good for
his ratings or not, I can tell you that I
do believe there's something different about what happened to Charlie Kirk.
(29:42):
And it's one thing to do something stupid in the
past and have it get forgotten. It's another thing with
Charlie Kirk. I believe that this is a wound, This
is a stain on his broadcast legacy that is not
going to go away. And the final point, and there's
(30:07):
people who celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk who are
finding this out. It can have other repercussions in your life,
and we all know that, whether it be your job,
whether it be the followers that you have, and so
on and so forth, and that's part of the process.
Some people feel that it's worth that price, and if
they want to take that chance, that is up to them,
(30:29):
but they can't complain about it when it happens.
Speaker 4 (30:32):
Here.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Again, I want to be very clear, short of violence,
no one should have themselves or their family threatened. That
is complete and total bullshit. And all the people that
behaved in this manner towards Charlie Kirk and celebrated his death,
none of them should be being threatened. We should all
show that we are better than that. Okay. As we
(30:54):
wind down this episode, and again we are in production
September twenty seventh, the big breaking news is that of
James Comey, former FBI director, being indicted. And this was
a first former FBI director being indicted. And I know
there's a lot of people upset about the fact that
(31:15):
they feel that this was politically motivated. All I can
tell you is, as this moves forward, we'll go where
the facts lead us. My early inclination is that this
won't go far, and if it does, he's probably going
to get us lap on the rest. But if you're
worried about political motivations when it comes to prosecutions and
(31:37):
indictments and all these other things, let me harken back
to what I said earlier. These precedents were set before
we had a former president who was indicted for what
amounted to political shenanigans. Was he guilty of political shenanigans?
Probably he shuffled money around to hide the fact, probably
(31:58):
from his wife, that he paid to have sex with
a sex worker. Now does this rise to the level
of being something that a former president should be indicted for?
Did he start a war under false pretenses or anything
like that. No, he had sex. And here again, I'm
(32:22):
not the biggest Christian in the world, but I do
have a certain amount of morality. I don't feel that
cheating on your wife or doing these types of things
is a good thing. But does it rise to the
level of being the first president who was indicted for
something I don't know about that and prosecuted and charged
(32:45):
and all these other things found guilty. Does it rise
to that level? I mean, we could debate that, but
the fact that we have to debate it says a lot.
So these precedents have been set and for to cheer
on one hand and not for the other for what
(33:07):
is essentially the same situation with different players involved. Is
exactly what I said at the top of this episode.
We have to start evaluating things, regardless of what team
we are on, if we are on a blue team
or a red team or whatever. When something breaks. There's
one thing to have a philosophical you know, standard that
(33:31):
you go by, and this is kind of what I like.
It's another thing to have those filters create a reality
for you that serves you and only you and not
the other people. That is where the division is coming.
From now. We all have a set of standards based
(33:51):
upon the people involved. Are they on our team or
are they not on our team? That's a bad recipe
for America, It really is, all right. I am Billy D's.
Thank you so much for listening to the podcast today.
Remember you can find me on social media at Billy
D's on what used to be Twitter now X. That's
(34:14):
kind of like my social media home. And you can
find The Billy D's Podcast anywhere. Podcasts are found on
your favorite podcasting platform. We have been there ten years strong,
so we're easy to find on your favorite platform. If
you can't find us, I don't know what to tell you,
but we're there. Thank you very much for listening, and
(34:37):
we will talk to you again very very soon. I'm
Billy D's and host of the self titled podcast, The
Billy D's Podcast. We are primarily an interview and a
commentary based podcast featuring authors and creators talking about their craft,
(34:58):
advocates for unity issues, and myself in an array of
co host discussing current events. There's no partisan renting and
raving going on here, just great content. You can find
The Billy D's Podcast on your favorite platform and on
Twitter at Billy D's thank you and I hope you
listen in
You are listening to The Billy D's Podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
All right, Well, hello everyone, and welcome to The Billy
D's Podcast. As always, I am absolutely thrilled that you
are here. If you've never checked us out before. We
are primarily an interview and a commentary based podcast. Today
I will be commentating, so I guess you could say
this is going to be a commentary episode. I'm going
(00:31):
to center around this whole Jimmy Kimmel situation, some of
the confusion about free speech in regard to this, and
in general, the reactions online to what happened with Charlie Kirk,
which well we'll get into that. They were very disappointing,
(00:51):
some of these horrible reactions, and we're going to get
into that. Last week I touched quite extend on the
Jimmy Kimmel situation, and since then, of course he's been reinstated,
he's back on the air. The various media companies that
were involved with some of the affiliates, they're either going
(01:11):
to put him back on or he already is. So
a lot has happened in the last week. But nonetheless,
you know, I've done some controversial topics over the years.
I didn't believe that last week's episode was really that
hot in terms of controversy. But for whatever reason, I
(01:32):
got more negative comments than what I usually get when
I tackling more controversial topic. A lot of the people
that normally are in step with what we talk about
here on the program were on Jimmy Kimmel's side, so
to speak, or at least they were in principle. And
(01:52):
I'll get into that in just a moment here. Again,
if you are new, I want you to know that
typically I do not take a quote unquote side. I
was never a yeah yeah yeah Trump person. Never was that,
And lately I would have to say I lean certainly
more to the right than I do the left. But
(02:13):
I don't believe that being on a team is a
good idea. And I've got to tell you a lot
of what happened here in the last week with me
and online and throughout the media has to do with
people being on a team. The people that were mad
at me was because I picked on somebody who was
(02:34):
on their team more so than objectively checking things out.
And I'm going to try to go through some of that.
I will be very honest and forthright with you. If
you are a Jimmy Kimmel fan and you feel that
he is a victim. You probably won't like this episode
that much, but I would ask you to step out
(02:57):
of that zone. Step out of that well. Jimmy Kimmel
on my team, he makes fun of the guy I
don't like. Try to step out of that zone. What
I try to do is go a place or places
where other points of view generally steered to the right
or to the left. I try to cover some ground
here that gives the subject more nuance and so on.
(03:20):
So kind of stay with me on this. One of
the comments that I got quite a bit on social
media aimed at me was that I just didn't get it.
I just didn't get the point of why they were
upset about Jimmy Kimmel because I went through this whole
rant about if he was really that popular, he could
(03:41):
you know, there's other forms of media that are available now,
including the one that I am on, and people like
Tucker Carlson and all these other people have done very
very well away from traditional media, and that includes Glenn
Beck and a lot of other people. They became bigger
than what they or before. And here again the response
(04:04):
was well, you just don't get the point though, about
what happened to them. So all right, fine, I just
didn't get the point. First of all, I covered the
point pretty thoroughly in the last episode. But what happens
is people hear what they want to hear, and a
lot of times they go off of clips from the show,
or a lot of times I get quoted on other
podcasts or blogs or whatever. So people on the strength
of that will react. And I understand that I'm probably
(04:26):
guilty of that as well. But anyway, let me try
to go into this as thoroughly as I possibly can.
There is a difference from what you might call free speech,
which basically, in a nutshell, without getting into a lot
of detail, here has to do with governmental censorship, especially
(04:46):
when you are criticizing the government. The whole idea is
that people can criticize their government without disappearing in the
middle of the night or what have you. And when
we're talking broadcast, this is a little a little different
because there are what are called broadcast standards and that
(05:07):
can vary from one market to another, and then there's
FCC regulations. And here again the premise is is that
the airwaves belong to the people. And the idea is
is that these airways have to serve the common good,
excuse me, the common good. So if you are constantly
(05:29):
slanting things, then that's not the common good. And the
other thing is with broadcast is you usually have advertisers
that you have to appease. You have to make sure
they're happy. You're beholden to these advertisers because they are
the people that are keeping you on the air. So
there's a lot of dynamics here to broadcast. At one time,
(05:51):
back in the nineteen fifties, let's say part of the
nineteen sixties, news and points of view were actually considered
a public service, and broadcast networks did these things begrudgingly
because the real money was on talk shows like I
Love Lucy and all this people falling down and getting
(06:13):
a pie in the face. These were the things that
brought in advertising dollars. And to have to present the news,
that was a chore they had to do to serve
the common good. And before news and political opinion became
a business, this was something that was done pretty objectively. Okay,
(06:33):
well times have changed. I for one, in years past,
back in the nineteen nineties, I produced a radio ad
that had the sound effect of a plane crashing, and
this advertisement was a parody. I was kind of shooting
(06:54):
for the airplane movies, remember the airplane movies that parodied
the playe disaster movies, And it was it was done
in good humor, in my opinion, and I wish I
would have kept that ad. That was back in the
days of tape, and I lost track of that advertisement.
But what happened is with broadcast standards. Interestingly, hundreds, if
(07:20):
not thousands of people heard that ad, and all the
feedback that I got was it was funny, it was hysterical.
The person that I produced the ad for told me
that that was the most successful ad that they ran.
But the manager of the station, who is responsible for
the broadcast standards, if the FCC is going to come
(07:42):
down on this station, he's the person who has to
bear the brunt of it. He didn't find the humor
in this ad at all. He was afraid that people
were going to take this as some literal depiction of
a tragic event. And of course, here again the entire
ad was clearly a parody. And in my opinion what
(08:02):
happened was this was a guy and this guy. You know,
he had about a size twenty two waist. He looked
like a dying tree. He had this giant beard that
probably had a size thirty five. And if you checked
the Wikipedia or the online dictionary under prick, his image
(08:26):
was probably there. This was a radio station in Akron,
Ohio at the time, and that radio station doesn't exist anymore.
And wherever this guy is now, he's probably still a prick.
I mean, that's just the long and the short of it.
He decided that he was going to exert his power
over me and make me pull that at which I
(08:47):
had to do. Now Here Again, this was a broadcast
standard that they wanted to maintain. This has nothing to
do with free speech and what Jimmy Kimmel said and
a lot of people's estimation did not meet a broadcast standard.
I'm not even sure that this was technically a free
(09:10):
speech issue. I know a lot of people have insinuated
that the Trump administration exerted something directly over this, and
there was talk that the FCC might have been involved.
I have not been able to draw a direct connection
to that. I would certainly hope that is not the case.
(09:31):
For whatever reason. I just don't feel that this was
something worth meddling in now. Trump here again, I'm not
necessarily a pro Trump person. Trump fueled some speculation about
this because he ran his mouth, and this is something
that he probably should have stayed away from because all
he did was fuel speculation that he had something to
(09:53):
do with it. But I'm going to work under the
assumption that the federal government had very little to do
with this. This had to do with broadcast standards. And
here again, there was a number of different companies involved
in putting Jimmy Kimmel on the air, and it also
had to do with broadcast standards, inter intermingling with advertisers.
(10:16):
Are advertisers happy about what happened here? That is the
real issue. Now, if you're going to tell me that
he was taken off for no good reason, there's a
number of people who got involved with broadcast standards, including myself,
who had to take things off the air or were
(10:36):
taken off the air for no good reason. One of
them was Megan Kelly. Megan Kelly asked a question, asked
a question that was deemed too bad for broadcast standards
and was taken off the air. A lot of these
people that are coming at me so concerned about Jimmy
(10:57):
Kimmel did say anything about Megan Kelly, that's because she
is not on their team. Tucker Carlson is another one.
And you talk about ratings. He ruled the time slot
he was in, he ruled it. He not only ruled
it in terms of news, but he ruled it on
other things. If memory serves me correctly, there were certain
(11:21):
nights where his ratings beat the NBA playoffs those years.
So this wasn't ratings here again, he just said something
that his wheelhouse didn't like and he was taken off. Now,
a lot of these people that came at me about
Jimmy Kimmel, where were they when this happened to Tucker Carlson.
(11:41):
As a matter of fact, what did Jimmy Kimmel say
about Tucker Carlson?
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Has severed bow ties with Tucker Carlson after all these years,
they are parting ways, which means he was fired. I mean,
that's really what parting ways?
Speaker 2 (11:59):
What a shock?
Speaker 1 (12:00):
I mean, what an absolutely delightful shock this is.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yeah, he sounds like he was all bereaved over the
idea that Tucker Caulson was removed or some broadcast standards
violation by some entity. But anyway, let's move on. I
know a lot of people are still worried about the
possible connection between a free speech violation with the FCC. Okay,
(12:28):
I don't know if there was, like I said before,
but I do know that there have been attempts by
the federal government to interfere with free speech online. As
a matter of fact, there's very little doubt about this.
But again, it didn't happen to the person on your team,
so you weren't that worried about it. Let's start with
(12:48):
Marcus Zuckerberg. Marca Zuckerberg stated that the Biden administration pressured Meta,
which is Facebook's parent company, to censor certain content during
the covideen pandemic. He made these remarks in a letter
to the House Judiciary Committee and during an appearance on
(13:09):
Joe Rogan.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
They pushed us super hard to take down things that
were honestly were true, right, I mean they basically pushed
us and said, you know, anything that says that vaccines
might have side effects, you basically need to take down.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
All right. That doesn't sound very free speech, ye now
does it? And what happened with metaw was the only case.
Investigative journalist Matt Tayebi, who is absolutely fantastic by the way,
produced the Twitter files and what this did was reveal
how the company handled content moderation. Content to moderate moderation,
(13:52):
that's an interesting term. Now, this was before Elon must
took it over, and this was regarding a couple of
cases in particular. Number one was probably the Hunter Biden
laptop story, and the other one was the suspension of
the then former President Donald Trump. Here again, this was
back when it was Twitter, and a lot of the
(14:13):
people that are crying about what happened with Jimmy Kimmel
felt that this was a great thing. And here again
I want to be very clear on this. When you
start judging situations based upon the people involved, are they
on your team or are they not on your team?
For one, first and foremost, you are setting yourself up
(14:34):
to be manipulated, because once you are firmly on a team,
you'll do whatever the coach says. And there's a lot
of people out there who are just following what the
coach says, they're not really following what's happening on the
entire field with the other team. And other people involved.
(14:54):
So that's my caution there. And the other thing is
is you have to be very careful about setting these
press It's one thing to laugh when somebody you don't
like is taking off of something, some platform or something,
but you're setting a precedent for a time, and it's
going to happen to you, and that's what people forget
(15:15):
in all of this. But we'll move on one of
the things that I heard in terms of the comments
that were sent my way when I talked about the
last episode and I talked about some of the online
celebrations for lack of a better term, over what happened
to Charlie Kirk, and a lot of people said, oh,
(15:35):
where are these celebrations. I haven't seen one. Well, I'll
tell you what. Let's let's do a quick sampling here,
shall we. Hey, maga, how bad does it hurt to
Jimmy Kimmel's back? But you guys can't get your person back.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Charlie Kirk family, did you see all that blood that
came out of his body. I'm not saying that violence
isn't the way everyone's.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
Saying that we are Charlie Kirk. Y'all sound like y'all
want to be the same fate he met. We are,
Charlie Kirk, you can meet the same faits it is.
Speaker 6 (16:19):
Let's all join hands and bow our heads in thoughts
and prayers for Charlie Kirk. Thoughts and prayers for Charlie
Kerk thoughts and press thoughts and prayers.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
There are some real sweethearts. And that reel wasn't there.
And believe me, I'm just scratching the surface. There's plenty more.
You get the idea on the heels of that. I
wanted to point out something about Charlie Kirk as we
go into exactly what Jimmy Kimmel said that caused the ruckus.
Charlie Kirk went out, i would say, very bravely into
(16:59):
the public to gauge people, whether it be at college
campuses or what have you. And his life was under threat.
That is why he had the bulletproof vest, that is
why he had the security details. He was constantly being threatened.
But his faith was a motivator and so were the
things that he believed in. And I admire that. Now.
(17:21):
I'm not particularly a person who practices Christian principles to
say the least, but I can admire someone like that
who feels what they believe in is so strong that
they are willing to go out and risk their life. Now,
Jimmy Kimmel, by contrast, is in a television studio that
(17:43):
has security. He has an audience that likes him and
is very friendly to him and laughs at his every
little quip. And he lives in a community that is
very exclusive. So a lot of the ideals that he expouses,
you know, for all of the average people out there,
(18:05):
the people have to lock their doors at night. He's
not really living their truth. He's not really putting himself
out there, certainly not the way Charlie Kirk did. And
what I would say here and here again, reflecting on
the videos and the clips that we just heard, there's
(18:27):
nothing more that cowards like than the downfall of the brave.
Cowards rejoice when the brave fall. I'm just putting that
out there because you can hear a certain liveliness to
(18:48):
one's words. Here is Jimmy Kimmel. This was the remark
that got him in trouble when he talked about the
affiliation that the shooter had. We hit some new.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Lows over the weekend with the Magga gang desperately trying
to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything
other than one of them, and everything they can to
score political points from it.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Yes, there, it is his opposition. As it were. We're
doing everything they can to characterize this person as something
other than their own. What did the official accounts of
this say?
Speaker 7 (19:28):
Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so,
Robinson had become more political and had started to lean
more to the left, becoming more pro gay and trance
writes Oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate,
a biological male who was transitioning genders.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Now, I want to be clear here, I don't like
it when the actions of a maniac is assigned to
a particular group for political reasons. There is a certain relevance.
Let's say, for example, when a white Christian goes out
and does something horrible, It's important to understand what group
(20:12):
this person belonged to, and is there something going on
in this group that could be encouraging this behavior. So
I believe it is relevant, But to just slap a
label on an entire political group and call them out
for the actions of a maniac I feel is wrong. Nonetheless,
(20:32):
this was a clear misrepresentation of the facts here, and
he did it in a way that was very glib,
and the timing was horrible. This was right when the
wounds of a nation for so many people that loved
and admired Charlie Kirk were open. The timing of this
(20:56):
was particularly bad. Okay, With that being said, here again,
he got into some broadcast standards issues, and I'm sure
the advertisers were nervous. The different broadcast companies besides ABC
were possibly nervous as well, and some of them on
their own decided to pull his programming until this got resolved.
(21:20):
All right. With that being said, when he comes back,
we all knew that there would be a huge spike
in ratings, and that's exactly what happened. I've heard various
things that don't have any solid ratings numbers, but the
general feeling is is that a lot of people tuned
(21:40):
in to Jimmy Kimmel to hear what he was going
to say after he was reinstated back on ABC with
his program. And for all the people that are going
to tell me how badly he was treated, let me
remind you that he benefited from this. He got a
(22:02):
ratings spike, so much so that a lot of people
feel that his comments were orchestrated because he got a
huge ratings boost from this. The Jimmy Kimmel Show became
relevant again because of this incident. So not only was
he not a victim, not only was he not picked
on under some the guys of free speech, he actually
(22:26):
benefited from the assassination of Charlie Kirk. So lots of
people tune into his program to hear what he's got
to say, and this is a part of it.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
But I do want to make something clear because it's
important to me as a human and that is you
understand that it was never my intention to make light
of the murder of a young man.
Speaker 8 (22:51):
I don't think there's only being funny about it. I
posted a message on Instagram Raama the Daves killed, sending
love to his family and asking for compassion, and I
meant it and I still do. Nor was it my
intention to blame any specific group for the actions of
what it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
We are going to contrast what he just said there
with what he said originally and here again specific to
the points that really triggered this in just a moment.
But I want to point something else out. Like I
said earlier, cowards often rejoice when the brave fall, And
when they rejoice and they get themselves in a little
(23:34):
trouble over it, they don't really apologize. What they do, though,
is they extole the virtues of forgiveness, hoping that some
of it will spill onto them.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
A moment over the weekend, a very beautiful moment.
Speaker 8 (23:52):
I don't know if he saw this.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
On Sunday, Erica Kirk forgave the man who shot her husband.
Speaker 8 (23:58):
She forgave him. That is an example we should follow.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Yes, forgiveness is something that we should all learn to do. Now.
I'm not apologizing, of course, but forgiveness is something that
all of you can learn how to do. And when
I extol the virtues of forgiveness, I'm really hoping some
(24:24):
of that spills onto me. Even though I really didn't
apologize for anything. That's basically what you heard there. Now,
I got to be honest with you. Like I said,
I'm not the world's greatest Christian. If I was, Erica Kirk,
I don't know if I could forgive the shooter. I
probably couldn't. And I got to tell you if Jimmy
(24:44):
Kimmel is hoping that through osmosis or his you know,
extolling these virtues of forgiveness, that some of that is
going to trickle down onto him as far as I
am concerned, No, no, no, he can take his virtues
(25:06):
of forgiveness and he can shove him right up his ass. Now,
as we move forward here, let's contrast what he said
versus what he said he said, and I got them
separated by my famous little woshes.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the
Magagank desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie
Kirk is anything other than one of them and everything
they can to score political points from it.
Speaker 8 (25:38):
Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group
for the actions of what it was obviously a deeply
disturbed individual. Nor was it my intention to blame any
specific group for the actions of what it was obviously
a deeply disturbed individual. With the Magagank desperately trying to
characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything than
(26:00):
one of them, and everything they can to score political
points from it.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Oh and by the way, remember the video, the infamous
video of the lady very sarcastically raising up thoughts and
prayers for Charlie Kirk. She went on her own victim
rant here.
Speaker 6 (26:18):
Recently, I posted a follow up video expressing why I
felt the way I did, and even ended with I
hope Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery and goes on
to become a gun violence advocate. Since if you have
watched any of the videos on my page, you would
know I stand firmly on not being violent and that
violence is not the way we are going to fix
(26:38):
things in this country. Well, since I posted those two videos,
my life has been completely turned upside down and I
have been thrown into what I can only explain as
literal hell.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I want to be as clear as I can on
this point. Apparently this young lady was threatened, and that
is complete and total bullshit. Nobody deserves that, not even
Jimmy Kimmel deserves that. I've been threatened because of the
podcast and years ago when I was a disc jockey,
I was threatened because I played music people didn't like.
And anybody who's been on the receiving end of that
(27:11):
kind of madness knows that nobody deserves that. Now there's
different levels to how we communicate, and here again with
Jimmy Kimmel, it was through the air. And there's first
broadcast endards, which can vary depending on the broadcast company.
I've worked for radio stations that you could get away
with a lot. I've worked for other radio stations where
(27:32):
you couldn't. And here again, they're ultimately accountable to the FCC,
so you have to give them some latitude in terms
of how they want to protect themselves. There's also advertisers. Now,
advertisers can say hey, that's not for me and pull
the plug. And broadcast, for the most part, is almost
entirely funded by advertising. So there's these components there. I
(27:54):
am against governmental censorship, no matter who the president is,
all right, And I want to also state this, some
of these celebrations about Charlie Kirk, in my opinion, are
dangerously close to being on thin ice when it comes
to free speech provisions, because free speech provisions do not
(28:18):
allow for celebrating or wishing harm on someone. And when
you celebrate a violent act that was done to someone
and you say I'm okay with this. I'm happy about
this because this person stood for A B and C.
What you have just done is paint a target on
(28:39):
the back of anybody who stands for A B and C.
So you have to be very careful of that. But
with the exception of that type of thing, I am
a free speech absolutist, and I do believe that you
have the right in terms of free speech to run
your mouth and be an asshole, just like this young
lady did, and just like Jimmy Kimmel did. Now Jimmy
(29:01):
Kimmel's getting praised for it. He's benefiting from the horrible
thing that happened to Charlie Kirk. I do not believe
that the current spike. I did predict a spike in
ratings for him as he became relevant again through all
of this controversy and people would tune in to hear
what he has had to say, and that did happen. Now,
(29:22):
how long that is going to be sustained is another thing.
It's going to be a couple weeks before the baseline
of his ratings starts to level off, and we can
kind of make a determination. Was this ultimately good for
his ratings or not, I can tell you that I
do believe there's something different about what happened to Charlie Kirk.
(29:42):
And it's one thing to do something stupid in the
past and have it get forgotten. It's another thing with
Charlie Kirk. I believe that this is a wound, This
is a stain on his broadcast legacy that is not
going to go away. And the final point, and there's
(30:07):
people who celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk who are
finding this out. It can have other repercussions in your life,
and we all know that, whether it be your job,
whether it be the followers that you have, and so
on and so forth, and that's part of the process.
Some people feel that it's worth that price, and if
they want to take that chance, that is up to them,
(30:29):
but they can't complain about it when it happens.
Speaker 4 (30:32):
Here.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Again, I want to be very clear, short of violence,
no one should have themselves or their family threatened. That
is complete and total bullshit. And all the people that
behaved in this manner towards Charlie Kirk and celebrated his death,
none of them should be being threatened. We should all
show that we are better than that. Okay. As we
(30:54):
wind down this episode, and again we are in production
September twenty seventh, the big breaking news is that of
James Comey, former FBI director, being indicted. And this was
a first former FBI director being indicted. And I know
there's a lot of people upset about the fact that
(31:15):
they feel that this was politically motivated. All I can
tell you is, as this moves forward, we'll go where
the facts lead us. My early inclination is that this
won't go far, and if it does, he's probably going
to get us lap on the rest. But if you're
worried about political motivations when it comes to prosecutions and
(31:37):
indictments and all these other things, let me harken back
to what I said earlier. These precedents were set before
we had a former president who was indicted for what
amounted to political shenanigans. Was he guilty of political shenanigans?
Probably he shuffled money around to hide the fact, probably
(31:58):
from his wife, that he paid to have sex with
a sex worker. Now does this rise to the level
of being something that a former president should be indicted for?
Did he start a war under false pretenses or anything
like that. No, he had sex. And here again, I'm
(32:22):
not the biggest Christian in the world, but I do
have a certain amount of morality. I don't feel that
cheating on your wife or doing these types of things
is a good thing. But does it rise to the
level of being the first president who was indicted for
something I don't know about that and prosecuted and charged
(32:45):
and all these other things found guilty. Does it rise
to that level? I mean, we could debate that, but
the fact that we have to debate it says a lot.
So these precedents have been set and for to cheer
on one hand and not for the other for what
(33:07):
is essentially the same situation with different players involved. Is
exactly what I said at the top of this episode.
We have to start evaluating things, regardless of what team
we are on, if we are on a blue team
or a red team or whatever. When something breaks. There's
one thing to have a philosophical you know, standard that
(33:31):
you go by, and this is kind of what I like.
It's another thing to have those filters create a reality
for you that serves you and only you and not
the other people. That is where the division is coming.
From now. We all have a set of standards based
(33:51):
upon the people involved. Are they on our team or
are they not on our team? That's a bad recipe
for America, It really is, all right. I am Billy D's.
Thank you so much for listening to the podcast today.
Remember you can find me on social media at Billy
D's on what used to be Twitter now X. That's
(34:14):
kind of like my social media home. And you can
find The Billy D's Podcast anywhere. Podcasts are found on
your favorite podcasting platform. We have been there ten years strong,
so we're easy to find on your favorite platform. If
you can't find us, I don't know what to tell you,
but we're there. Thank you very much for listening, and
(34:37):
we will talk to you again very very soon. I'm
Billy D's and host of the self titled podcast, The
Billy D's Podcast. We are primarily an interview and a
commentary based podcast featuring authors and creators talking about their craft,
(34:58):
advocates for unity issues, and myself in an array of
co host discussing current events. There's no partisan renting and
raving going on here, just great content. You can find
The Billy D's Podcast on your favorite platform and on
Twitter at Billy D's thank you and I hope you
listen in
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.