Alan Zweibel

And Charlie Cook was also an absolute defender of the 2nd Amendment even though he acknowledged that some deaths would occur because of it. In other words, taking the rough with the smooth was worth the price.

On matters of public interest, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to free speech is absolute.

That was for reasons of public health. You don't have the right to endanger the health of others. There were actually doctors and nurses who felt that they had a right to refuse to be vaccinated.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s pursuit of a clean-shaven military took its latest step Monday when the Pentagon announced that troops who require medical shaving waivers for longer than a year will face involuntary separation, according to an official memo... In March, the Marine Corps ordered Marines diagnosed with pseudofolliculitis barbae, which leads to unwanted bumps and painful ingrown hair from frequent shaving, to undergo medical reevaluation within 90 days to determine whether they still required a waiver... About 60% of Black men are affected by the condition, according to the American Osteopathic College of Dermatology. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2025/09/15/troops-with-medical-shaving-waivers-to-face-separation-hegseth-says/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_mt&fbclid=IwY2xjawM2_ndleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETF3VWxKdDJZekROVHk1bXM0AR5U7jiiWYGPHgr1fkmMcIBUwzseuxQKc8yrLJpTkug4lrGM5L9S0Nn3ZL-VRQ_aem_ubqYYpDRaLaLcyZyXkNtmA The article goes on to say that this policy is designed to ensure "maximum warfighting readiness". But religious exemptions for beards are still allowed. Apparently, if God is on your side, you have already attained a state of "maximum warfighting readiness.".

Right. People who make a bad choice in marriage deserve to have society punish them.

First off, it looks like "managing partner" is just a corporate HR way of saying manager. If he was an owner, how could he be fired from his job? But even if your take is correct, what is your point? That being a spouse wouldn't justify him, but being his wife's partner would?

And it might be useful to point out to you that the Supreme Court has ruled definitely that speech, no matter how vile, is protected by the Constitution. You might want to look up the Westboro Baptist decision in which the Supreme Court decided that even blatantly hateful speech is protected by the Constitution.

And it took him 4 days to do it. Where is the MAGA outrage? And what about his co-hosts who didn't challenge his statement?

"No, in that posted video he did not suggest killing the homeless, the obviously spuriously edited discussion was about the crazed, mentally ill who needed to be institutionalised because of the danger they pose to normal people. " More face-saving nonsense from you. The text and the video together conveyed the truth. Your claim of it being "spurious" is nonsense. Here's the definition of spurious: "not being what it purports to be; false or fake."

We have Charlie Kirk on the record repeatedly rejecting the notion that speech should be punished. Are you engaged in some kind of magical thinking. Do you believe that when someone dies, all records of what they said and wrote just vanish? And does the murder of a Minnesota politician and her husband, among many other acts of violence by right wing lunatics mean that nice attempts at engaging with the right have failed?

In July, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem proclaimed during a news conference following ICE raids on California farms that videotaping ICE agents performing operations is “violence.” Noem lumped video recordings in with other forms of actual violence, like throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails at agents... In L.A., government attorney Skedzielewski didn’t just argue that video recording is violent. He said that meant that justified officers in using force against people videotaping them. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a66024485/recording-police-is-violence/ It may be 2025, but in America it's feeling more and more like 1984.

That might be funny, if it were true. Anyway, your claim that Matthew Reading should reap what he sows, still makes no sense.

You know who would have disagreed with you? I'll give you a hint. His initials are C.K.

Apparently, you also believe in reap what your spouse sows.

An angry right wing has emerged to ensure that such people pay, kicking off a wave of firings and suspensions that have affected journalists, Secret Service agents, and university employees. One of those people is named Matthew Readling. He is the manager of a Texas Roadhouse in Milton, Florida, a small city in the state’s deep-red Panhandle. But unlike most of the others who have lost their jobs in the wake of Kirk’s assassination, Readling doesn’t appear to have said anything about Charlie Kirk at all. https://www.thefp.com/p/his-wife-called-charlie-kirk-a-nazi?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Erdogan of Turkey is another of Trump's pals

The following pretty much encapsulates the massive hypocrisy of MAGA “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out,” said Vice President J.D. Vance earlier today on Kirk’s show, where he was guest hosting. “And hell, call their employer.” It should be noted that earlier this year, J.D. Vance encouraged Elon Musk to rehire a DOGE staffer who had resigned after a reporter revealed that he had authored several racist tweets, including a call to “normalize Indian hate.” After criticizing the reporter for breaking the story, Vance declared, “I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life.” Defending a man who called for the normalization of hate against an ethnic minority that includes your own wife and children on the basis of combating cancel culture seems like a principled stance—but if you’re unwilling to extend the same grace to people who aren’t on Team Red, it isn’t a principle at all. https://www.thefp.com/p/his-wife-called-charlie-kirk-a-nazi?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

So, you're saying that you don't support workers coming to the United States for one temporary assignment? Or rather do you believe that this system doesn't artificially depress wages and make these jobs less attractive to Americans? It looks to me like you were claiming the latter to be the case.

You reading his mind? Has he referred to Swiss banking as a reason?

So, in other words, you support a system that will depress wages thanks to overregulation instead of allowing a system for these workers to be paid at market rates. In other words, keep the wages low for this industry with the result that few Americans will want them.

Before he became President, Trump had almost an unbroken record in failing to succeed in defamation cases. The only one he won was by default as the person sued never showed up for trial. The fact is Trump has a history of waging lawfare against financially weaker parties in order to punish them by imposing heavy legal costs in baseless cases. In the case of CBS he was exploiting the fact that he is President and is able to pressure these companies which depend on the government licenses. Jonathan Turley who has been very supportive of Trump in legal cases brought against him wrote this: Turley wrote in his blog post that while he agrees "with the criticism of the media, including CBS, in the bias shown in the election," the lawsuit "would be legally groundless," and "would fail," adding that "the media is allowed to engage in such editing." https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cbs-lawsuit-threat-entirely-unnecessary-jonathan-turley-1971829 The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal don't need govt licensing and have the financial resources to adequately combat Trump's lawfare.

Great. A President abuses the office for his own gain. Before Trump became President he had an almost unbroken history of waging lawfare in libel cases. He never had a good case. But what he did have was the funds to inflict damage on those he chose to pursue. In the case of CBS, itg was seeking government approval to transfer its license as part of a sale.

No doubt China has very serious problems. But it's hardly on the ropes. And it doesn't have elections to worry about.

Well, unlike Trump and his MAGA lemmings, the Chinese acknowledge that tariffs will hurt their economy. They just point out that they hurt the US economy also. It just shows to what depths Trump has sunk that the Chinese govt is more honest than he is.

And they agreed to a minimal wage because they didn't have any leverage to get paid what the market says their labor is actually worth. And it's not just the pay. The working conditions are also an issue.