• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tucker Carlson

calamity said:
Promote child sex and lose advertisers. Whodda thunk it?

Outback Steakhouse stopped advertising on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show earlier this year as brands fled in droves after the host's controversial comments


27 brands? Hmm...what's left, My Pillow?


Well...I can see how that might ruin your steak.
Click to expand...

He's now crying about how HE'S the victim of course. :lol:

Typical right winger... Say's really stupid crap, and then declares themselves the victim when people don't like the really stupid crap they said.
 
poweRob said:
He's now crying about how HE'S the victim of course. :lol:

Typical right winger... Say's really stupid crap, and then declares themselves the victim when people don't like the really stupid crap they said.
Click to expand...

Tucker is having a rough year. I can't see him lasting much longer if it keeps up like this for him.
 
Grokmaster said:
NO VIDEO of what he ACTUALLY SAID we see. Big Surprise there.

He did not say ALL WOMEN ARE "PRIMITIVE"... that's a lie.

And he did not defend Warren Jeffs' polygamy, did he?
Click to expand...

Even tucker isn't denying it... yet here you are, lying on his behalf. :lol:
 
Barnacle said:
I'm having a hard time to find the reason for this recent boycott. Is it because CNN "refreshed" an interview with Tucker Carlson that was recorded about 13 years ago?
Click to expand...

Tucker defended statutory rape just a few years ago. Got anything else?


Oh and looky whose interviewing him... Gavin McInnes. Tucker goes crawling to do an interview with the white supremacist leader of the Far-Right Proud Boys. Go ****ing figure.
 
Last edited:
Barnacle said:
Yep; I believe at the time that particular interview was made, Tucker was transitioning from CNN to MSNBC.
So, why do you think neither of them made a fuss about it at that time?

Tucker worked for Fox for the last 10 years ... ample time for CNN to "refresh" that interview.

Why now?
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know... tell us why barn.
 
Winston said:
Jeffs first conviction was in the mid-'00's for being an accomplice to the rape of underage girls. His last conviction was in the early '10's. So, it depends on which crimes you are referring. He wasn't convicted of incest until after that interview. But, he was serving time for marrying off girls against their will.
Click to expand...

That's my point he wasn't convicted of his other crimes until after Tucker made his comments at the time he was only convicted of facilitating the marrying off of girls and that was Tuckers comments that was Jeffs crime and was questioning if his crimes fit his legal punishment. Something we should be able to talk about for any criminal no matter the crime.
 
jdog21 said:
That's my point he wasn't convicted of his other crimes until after Tucker made his comments at the time he was only convicted of facilitating the marrying off of girls and that was Tuckers comments that was Jeffs crime and was questioning if his crimes fit his legal punishment. Something we should be able to talk about for any criminal no matter the crime.
Click to expand...

My point is twofold: 1. Jeffs knew the girls did not consent to be married yet he did it anyway
2. Jeffs knew that the girls were going to be raped after marriage.

The prosecutors and judge and jury, knew what they were doing with this case. I'm not saying prosecutors are beyond reproach but, with a cult leader, I think it's a slam dunk case.

Given that we know Jeffs married the girls off to be raped at will, Tucker has no credible defense of him. Or, maybe he should've appealed the case with Jeffs, I'm sure the Judge and Jury just didn't realize that marrying a girl off against her will just isn't that big of a deal to Tucker Carlson.
 
Winston said:
My point is twofold: 1. Jeffs knew the girls did not consent to be married yet he did it anyway
2. Jeffs knew that the girls were going to be raped after marriage.

The prosecutors and judge and jury, knew what they were doing with this case. I'm not saying prosecutors are beyond reproach but, with a cult leader, I think it's a slam dunk case.

Given that we know Jeffs married the girls off to be raped at will, Tucker has no credible defense of him. Or, maybe he should've appealed the case with Jeffs, I'm sure the Judge and Jury just didn't realize that marrying a girl off against her will just isn't that big of a deal to Tucker Carlson.
Click to expand...

You're conflating your second point. Tucker was bringing up a topic of conversation not defending him. He was asking a question is facilitating a marriage the same as being an associate to rape? It ok to bring the question up to talk about it without defending the guys actions.
 
jdog21 said:
You're conflating your second point. Tucker was bringing up a topic of conversation not defending him. He was asking a question is facilitating a marriage the same as being an associate to rape? It ok to bring the question up to talk about it without defending the guys actions.
Click to expand...

He was not doing some thought experiment.. as you suggest.. he was being an insensitive prick on a radio show and it's okay to call him out on it.

You're also omitting other statements by Carlson that show he was defending Jeffs lifestyle, to what degree of sincerity, we don't know.
 
calamity said:
Promote child sex and lose advertisers. Whodda thunk it?

Outback Steakhouse stopped advertising on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show earlier this year as brands fled in droves after the host's controversial comments


27 brands? Hmm...what's left, My Pillow?


Well...I can see how that might ruin your steak.
Click to expand...

Is this really the best that they have against Carlson?

Well.. too bad to see that they're entirely off base, yet again.

These damn kids and their obsession with pulling already well known stuff from over a decade ago and acting like it was somehow hidden.
 
jdog21 said:
Yes and the parents of those GIRLS and that husband should be the focus of the conversation, not really the parson that facilitated their meetings.
Click to expand...

Last checked Jeffs is in prison for his dirty deeds...Hopefully getting his ass beat everyday
 
noonereal said:
Do I need to explain biology to you?

But yes, you are correct, women are the ones getting out of control.

They need to just shut up and get in the kitchen!
Click to expand...

I think that I get the meaning behind your name.
 
calamity said:
Promote child sex and lose advertisers. Whodda thunk it?

Outback Steakhouse stopped advertising on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show earlier this year as brands fled in droves after the host's controversial comments


27 brands? Hmm...what's left, My Pillow?


Well...I can see how that might ruin your steak.
Click to expand...

Geez Louise. CNN and MSNBC are both reporting on these kind of comments from Carlson, but certainly not in the vulgar detail shown in your link; probably because they are too freakin' vile for the FCC, even when bleeping the obscenities. This isn't just "old stuff" either. That last audio is from January 2019!

All I can say is OMG, what a gigantic prick, and wonder what kind of people actually watch his show in the first place.
 
Carlsen is an arrogant punk...Promoting his bigoted Bull****....He is defiant, unrepentant...refuses to apologize...I'd like to kick him in the face
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
Here's a gem:

Co-host: "No he [Jeffs] is an accessory to the rape of children. That is a felony and a serious one at that."

Tucker: "What do you mean an accessory? He's got some weird religious cult where he thinks it's ok to, you know, marry underage girls, but he didn't do it."

Someone needs to send Tucker to Criminal Justice 101 and teach him what accessory means. :lol:
Click to expand...

Geoist said:
Another gem:

Tucker: "The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let's be honest about it."

How does this guy still have a job? Oh yeah, Fox News...
Click to expand...

I'd expect that from a capslock creep at an anonymous forum, but wow.
 
​



That man's nothing but a vulgar provocateur.

What do people of integrity do when confronted with their own remarks? The either (1) defend them by way of explaining them or (2) recant them if they don't mean them. Carlson, with regard to his odious recently recounted remarks about women, has done neither, instead trying to play the "victim card."

He freely uttered the remarks and there is neither abstraction nor context in which they were in the mid-aughts or now reflective of probity or any stripe of respect for women. I mean, really. The man:
  1. Likened women to "dogs."
  2. Summarily called women "primitive."
  3. Specifically depicted Alexis Steward as "extremely C-wordy" and expressly as a "C-word," mind, he'd only encountered her in a hallway.
  4. Declared that he wanted "to give Alexis Stewart the spanking she so desperately needs."
  5. Called Justice Elena Kagan unattractive at a fundamental level.
  6. Called Arianna Huffington a "pig."
  7. Agreed that he wants to "eff" Sarah Palin.
  8. Called Paris Hilton and Britney Spears "two of the biggest white whores in America."
  9. Remarked that the instance of a 13-year-old child's molestation was something for which to "take one's hat off" to the child, continuing by saying the child should, as a result of the molestation, receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
  10. Said the phenomenon (if there even is such; Carlson didn't cite so much as one specific study among the "study after study" he claimed existed showing so) of women earning more than men causes (1) women to eschwe marrying men who earn less than they, (2) a drop in marriage, (3) a spike in bastard births, and (4) "all the familiar disasters that inevitably follow," which include "more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, and fewer families formed in the next generation."
For having made those remarks Carlson is neither expositive about their meaning or his intent nor is he remorseful about having uttered them. And let's be clear: The words themselves aren't the problem; the problem is the thoughts he had whereof those words describe them.
 
jdog21 said:
And once convicted of that fact then you can talk about his horrible perversions but doing show before hand is speculation.
Click to expand...
Playing devil’s advocate for a child rapist? Sick.
 
Last edited:
RaleBulgarian said:
Playing devil’s advocate for a child rapist? Sick.
Click to expand...

He wasn't a known child rapist at the time of the comments so talking about his convicted crime and comparing it to the details of his case are completely logical. You foresight and outrage are ridiculous.
 
jdog21 said:
He wasn't a known child rapist at the time of the comments so talking about his convicted crime and comparing it to the details of his case are completely logical. You foresight and outrage are ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Jeffs was a known child rapist before he was convicted. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that is ridiculous.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Jeffs was a known child rapist before he was convicted. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That wasn't known. That's like saying Michael Jackson was a known child rapist in 1990.
 
Xelor said:
​



That man's nothing but a vulgar provocateur.

What do people of integrity do when confronted with their own remarks? The either (1) defend them by way of explaining them or (2) recant them if they don't mean them. Carlson, with regard to his odious recently recounted remarks about women, has done neither, instead trying to play the "victim card."

He freely uttered the remarks and there is neither abstraction nor context in which they were in the mid-aughts or now reflective of probity or any stripe of respect for women. I mean, really. The man:
  1. Likened women to "dogs."
  2. Summarily called women "primitive."
  3. Specifically depicted Alexis Steward as "extremely C-wordy" and expressly as a "C-word," mind, he'd only encountered her in a hallway.
  4. Declared that he wanted "to give Alexis Stewart the spanking she so desperately needs."
  5. Called Justice Elena Kagan unattractive at a fundamental level.
  6. Called Arianna Huffington a "pig."
  7. Agreed that he wants to "eff" Sarah Palin.
  8. Called Paris Hilton and Britney Spears "two of the biggest white whores in America."
  9. Remarked that the instance of a 13-year-old child's molestation was something for which to "take one's hat off" to the child, continuing by saying the child should, as a result of the molestation, receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
  10. Said the phenomenon (if there even is such; Carlson didn't cite so much as one specific study among the "study after study" he claimed existed showing so) of women earning more than men causes (1) women to eschwe marrying men who earn less than they, (2) a drop in marriage, (3) a spike in bastard births, and (4) "all the familiar disasters that inevitably follow," which include "more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, and fewer families formed in the next generation."
For having made those remarks Carlson is neither expositive about their meaning or his intent nor is he remorseful about having uttered them. And let's be clear: The words themselves aren't the problem; the problem is the thoughts he had whereof those words describe them.
Click to expand...


Seems like you have your panties in a bunch over some things he said on a comedy show.
1) He likened women to dogs in their ability to sense fear and weakness. So what?

2) Can you find an example of where men are 'primitive?'


3-8) are his opinions, many of which are objectively true. Your moral outrage is as phony as ever.

9) Not exactly the type of highbrow humor you are used to but he was commenting on the idea that the kid had sex 28 times in a single week. He was applauding the kids stamina (sorry that I have to spell this sort of thing out to you :roll:)Anyone who has ever listened to Howard Stern or Bubba understands what is going on here. Perhaps if you were less ignorant of the situation you would make more sense. Or not.

10) Yes, he did not cite the study. So you got one right. 1 out of 10. Good job.
 
To all the Righties defending Tucker with the line "but it was 13 years ago" it dont wash. The Right luvs to rake Warren over the coals for a box she checked off on a form 30 years ago, fair is fair:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom