Plan B Forum

Here's the recording....

You really care what an asshole like that says?

Big RR wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 6:55 pm

You really care what an asshole like that says?

He speaks to 10s of millions of Americans every day Big RR, shouldn’t we care????

Teachers who regularly talk to ~100 kids/year are being fired for saying that maybe Charlie Kirk was awful and that if you live by hate it’s maybe not so surprising you’d die by hate.

Let’s lethally inject everyone homeless and mentally ill??? Let’s lose our job, if we were any other employer but Satan’s own mouthpiece FOX News.

Kilmeade made an "apology" in which he clarified that he doesn't think all mentally ill homeless people should be exterminated, but left it hanging that at least some of them still deserved it.

He speaks to 10s of millions of Americans every day Big RR, shouldn’t we care????

Should we; a lot of people speak to big audiences, but jerks are still jerks. Beside getting all worked up about what was said, what possible good comes out of it? Sadly, free speech works both ways. You want to counter the speech with the truth, by all means do so, but just getting worked up accomplishes nothing.

It's kind of like bitching that the head of the KKK is giving racist speeches--of course he is.

If Kilmeade was telling people to go out and execute the people on their own, I'd help lead the effort to have him arrested. But just spouting off like an asshole--of course he is. That's what he's there for.


FWIW, I have no problem with reporting what people say or have said; indeed, I think keeping an accurate record public is important. But I'm not going to get worked up about it. Now if Trump or one of his government minions said it...

And now Kimmel is silenced for pointing out that MAGA was going crazy to disavow the Kirk shooter while stoking more hate against their political opponents. ABC silenced him after public threats today by the chair of the FCC.

And the American King Trump I has truthed from the UK that NBC needs to silence Fallon and Meyers next.

It’s a rapid descent we are on; I fear we will lose it before we even find our footing.

Silencing is something I have no place for. But face it, with the way our system works now, does it really matter if ABC (or NBC or CBS) stops a show? There must be plenty of outlets where Kimmel (or Fallon or Meyers or Colbert for that matter) can be heard. The "major networks" are pretty much inconsequential now for entertainment or news; it's the reason many people are cutting the cord.

I think ABC is knuckling under to pressure, but then the networks always have done that same thing. I am not surprised.

Big RR wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 18, 2025 1:14 pm

But face it, with the way our system works now, does it really matter if ABC (or NBC or CBS) stops a show?

What matters is not whether X is cancelled - that happens to shows all the time. What matters is that the power of the US government (FCC) was used illegitimately by the President of the United States and his enablers to extort the compliance of a national media outlet.

And forget the cover-story about Kimmel's innocuous remark about the unseemly MAGA behavior over Kirk. His "crime" is that he mocked Trump for his response to a reporter's question as to how he was personally “holding up” after the assassination of Kirk, who the President said was a friend. Trump replied saying: "I'm very good” and then immediately started boasting about the new ballroom he is building at the White House. Kimmel said after the clip: “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of somebody called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.”

It matters, Big RR. It matters bigly

Is it surprising? Not in the least--both for the actions of the administration and for ABC rolling over and doing what they want. We have seen that again and again--from the Reagan administration pushing for the cancellation of Lou Grant (an entertainment show) to Reno et al pushing for Law and Order to tone down their stories (really, only to air stories they don't find objectionable, to any matter of other things. And yes, I agree, the executive branch should not be doing these things, even though they have for decades (look at the early newspaper fights during Washington's presidency or the Alien and Sedition acts during that of John Adams, or Lincoln's shuttering of the press, or...). This is more of the same.

But the difference now is that we have more outlets for those opinions to be voiced, and the influence of the big TV networks is on the wane. Sure, any attempt to silence free speech is bad, and cancelling from the right, left, or middle is not acceptable. But it is hardly something new.

Big RR wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 18, 2025 7:07 pm

Is it surprising? Not in the least--both for the actions of the administration and for ABC rolling over and doing what they want. We have seen that again and again--from the Reagan administration pushing for the cancellation of Lou Grant (an entertainment show) to Reno et al pushing for Law and Order to tone down their stories (really, only to air stories they don't find objectionable, to any matter of other things.

Not surprising - disgusting. And pushing" - is that the same thing as using a Federal agency to threaten any media outlet with punishment (as if they needed to detail what that might be) because an asshole is offended by a justifiable and accurate remark? Was Lou Grant cancelled - did L&O tone down their scripts? I don't know - I never watched either one.

And yes, I agree, the executive branch should not be doing these things, even though they have for decades (look at the early newspaper fights during Washington's presidency or the Alien and Sedition acts during that of John Adams, or Lincoln's shuttering of the press, or...). This is more of the same.

So it matters then? Please . . . Washington? Adams? Lincoln? Now is not then and it butters no parsnips to offer "well it happened before so you know . . ." as a defense of 2025s succession of presidential overreach and downright illegality. Or at least, immorality.

But the difference now is that we have more outlets for those opinions to be voiced, and the influence of the big TV networks is on the wane. Sure, any attempt to silence free speech is bad, and cancelling from the right, left, or middle is not acceptable. But it is hardly something new.

I don't recall a claim that it was "something new" so it boots nothing to offer that as an excuse for downplaying the significance of the closing off of media and violations of the freedom of the press. You are quite right about TV networks but of course many of us view such as Kimmel on Youtube anyway - we're too old to stay up past x p.m. Will Kimmel or any silenced voice be able to broadcast (OK stream) viably without network production? Not that that's the point either.

The point is unacceptable government malfeasance.

I don't mind Trump suing the Times (as long as he loses) - at least it's legal, personal, open and mean (of course).

So it matters then? Please . . . Washington? Adams? Lincoln? Now is not then and it butters no parsnips to offer "well it happened before so you know . . ." as a defense of 2025s succession of presidential overreach and downright illegality. Or at least, immorality.

No defense, just showing that it is not an unprecedented attack on free speech as I have seen claimed a number of times recently. It's why [presidential power should have been curtailed long ago.

Not surprising - disgusting. And pushing" - is that the same thing as using a Federal agency to threaten any media outlet with punishment (as if they needed to detail what that might be) because an asshole is offended by a justifiable and accurate remark? Was Lou Grant cancelled - did L&O tone down their scripts? I don't know - I never watched either one.

As I recall, the same use of federal agencies was made and licenses were threatened because of some vague BS "public interet
". And yes, Lou Grant was canceled and Law and Order began to toe the party line more (the original DA actor even resigned).

Will Kimmel or any silenced voice be able to broadcast (OK stream) viably without network production?

I don't see why not; and outlets like the Comedy Network might pick him up as well (hell, they're broadcasting the Trump South Park episodes, so they have the balls to stand up to him). I would imagine Kimmel could even put together his own streaming channel/internet site where he could broadcast 24 hours a day with his rants (or with like minded friends), and there's not much Trump could do; he'd likely get a lo of sponsors for it as well. The major networks are unnecessary and superfluous at best.

I don't mind Trump suing the Times (as long as he loses)

I agree; and it's fun t see him lose.