Alan Zweibel

You've shared the contents of your mind elsewhere in this forum. Your endorsement just confirms my opinion of him.

Actually, for some members here, and for an increasing number of right wingers, he is becoming one. For example, recently Hunter Carlson supported the notion that the US should have backed Hitler against Stalin. That the US was on the wrong side in WW2.

His hypothetical isn't inflammatory? A rational person would assume that upon seeing a black or hispanic pilot that they had never flown a plane before? You'd have to be a stone cold deranged racist to suspect that.

You're correct. He didn't say stupid. This is what he said of Ketanji Jackson Brown and 3 other black women: "Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-charlie-kirk-quote-082017036.html

How can you reconcile your claim with the fact that you explicitly said Kirk's assassination was a lot more serious than the FCC threatening to put ABC out of business?

How about you presenting a video that shows otherwise? You made the claim that the comments were taken out of context. Prove it.

He didn't use them as possible cases of affirmative action. He outright stated that it was so. That they were too stupid to have legitimately succeeded. You can wriggle as much as you like. But until you provide evidence that these statements were taken out of context, you're just blowing hot air. And in the case of the black and hispanic pilots, he uses a hypothetical characterization. As though a rational person would suspect that 2 pilots had zero experience before piloting a plane. Obviously inflammatory.

To justify the canceling of Jimmy Kimmel, you claimed that that the shooting of Charlie Kirk was a lot more serious than the FCC's threat to ABC. So, yes, you do support the overturning of the First Amendment

No one denies that Kirk was talking about affirmative action. It's the way he talked about and the fact that he engaged in explicit insults of certain people and claiming that the only reason they succeeded was because of affirmative action. You claim that he didn't insult these people. That his comments were taken out of context. Prove it. And good luck with that.

Can you share with us why you omitted the headline. Could it be due to this? Bill Maher says Jimmy Kimmel was ‘wrong’ to suggest Charlie Kirk’s killer supported MAGA — as he blasts ex-network over suspension

Kirk explicitly insulted her intellect and tied it to affirmative action. So, no, he wasn't just arguing that it might be the case, he was explicitly saying that it was the case.

So find the context. Kirk made a career out of saying the same things over and over again. Shouldn't be too difficult for you to back up your claim.

They made a decision after being threatened by the head of the FCC.

I prefaced my comment with "By the way" because your previous comment and this one aren't relevant to the issue. Pretty weak attempt. You apparently believe that an assassination of one person is enough to justify overturning the First Amendment. As I pointed out, and you clearly have no answer for, Kirk explicitly addressed the issue of the status of amendments when he noted that extra deaths were worth it in the case of preserving the 2nd Amendment. You think the First Amendment isn't at least as important as the Second?

Not racist? Because black and hispanic people really being made pilots with no experience is a realistic scenario? Give me a break. As for other comments being taken out of context? You're making the claim. Prove it. Good luck with that.

Co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg, Ana Navarro, Sara Haines, Sunny Hostin, Joy Behar and Alyssa Farah Griffin have remained noticeably silent on the subject as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission suggested it could be “worthwhile” to investigate whether the talk show has violated broadcast rules. “Potentially, I would assume you can make the argument that ‘The View’ is a bona fide news show, but I’m not so sure about that,” Chairman Brendan Carr said Thursday on “The Scott Jennings Radio Show.” “I think it’s worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether “The View” and some of these other programs that you have still qualify as bona fide news programs and [are] therefore exempt from the equal opportunity regime that Congress has put in place,” he said. https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/09/19/the-view-fcc-investigation-jimmy-kimmel/ And the assault on the First Amendment continues.

And he also called Martin Luther King, who was himself assassinated, a bad person. How is that not an insult?

Did you watch the video? Did you see what he said about various people? Those weren't insults? And, of course, you're backing away from your original statement in which you claimed that a person's character can't be judged on what they say. So, if someone were to say that he'd be worried about getting on a plane with a black and hispanic pilot because he's be worried if they've ever flown a plane before is not a racist insult? Or insulting a Supreme Court Justice, who has actually had a very distinguished legal career ,on the grounds that she is black and therefore benefited from DEI is not an insult?

Do you mean people he personally was engaged with in his debates or public figures that he talked about?

By the way, it's so far unbacked by any valid evidence that Kirk's wife and children were there to witness his assassination. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/unpacking-claim-charlie-kirks-wife-013000188.html

By your reasoning, Charlie Kirk's insults of the assassinated Martin Luther King put him right down there with Jingthing.

Really, you think that the government abrogating the first amendment is less serious than an individual being murdered? Do you think that the first amendment is less important than the second amendment? Because Charlie Kirk specifically said that the extra deaths incurred because of the second amendment were worth it. But the first amendment isn't worth it? But thanks for the rant.

Any beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are? Any insults, no matter how low? Any lies, no matter how blatant?

Give it up. You can't compete with the right when it comes to conspiracy theories. There just isn't the audience for it.

An open threat to put a company out of business is a lot more serious than what the Biden Administration did.