• 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!

Guess who said it: Tucker Carlson or a far-right shooter

bullseyelqcs said:
Yes, that is correct. That one is not a racist, however, does not mean that what they said may or may not be.

See, I'll explain it this way......Donald Trump, for example, is a bigot in my opinion, not a racist. That said, it doesn't mean he hasn't made racist comments. The problem is that there are lots of people who don't think he is either, and that because they don't think he is either, what he says can't be labeled as such. That is simply wrong.

Same holds true for the subject of this thread. Carlson is an idiot and a bigot, but I don't think he is a full on racist. That doesn't mean he hasn't made any racist comments to speak of.
Click to expand...

You go to such great lengths to to talk in circles. Of course, some of the things that Tucker Carlson once said were also once said by racists - which is no big deal to anyone but you. You certainly would not refuse to vote for Joe Biden simply because he once said some racist (and other stupid) things yet you somehow wish to completely demonize Tucker Carson for that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You go to such great lengths to to talk in circles. Of course, some of the things that Tucker Carlson once said were also once said by racists - which is no big deal to anyone but you. You certainly would not refuse to vote for Joe Biden simply because he once said some racist (and other stupid) things yet you somehow wish to completely demonize Tucker Carson for that.
Click to expand...

You go to great lengths to completely miss the point.

There is a difference between Carlson and Biden. Yes, Biden once said some stupid ****. He has since made a point of not living those statements since. Carlson is unapologetic about his bigoted stances. That means there is nothing alike about them following the statements in question.

For ****s sake...its like the Strom Thurmond/Robert Byrd debate. One of them went on to champion the very things they once stood diametrically opposed to. The other one just died bitter and still openly racist.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
You go to great lengths to completely miss the point.

There is a difference between Carlson and Biden. Yes, Biden once said some stupid ****. He has since made a point of not living those statements since. Carlson is unapologetic about his bigoted stances. That means there is nothing alike about them following the statements in question.

For ****s sake...its like the Strom Thurmond/Robert Byrd debate. One of them went on to champion the very things they once stood diametrically opposed to. The other one just died bitter and still openly racist.
Click to expand...

Yep, it is completely fair to compare Tucker Carlson at age 50 to Joe Biden at age 76 - that only robs Tucker Carson of 26 years for his positions to evolve to better suit yours like Joe Biden now at least says that he did. After all, Joe Biden is now "for truth not facts!".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, it is completely fair to compare Tucker Carlson at age 50 to Joe Biden at age 76 - that only robs Tucker Carson of 26 years for his positions to evolve to better suit yours like Joe Biden now at least says that he did. After all, Joe Biden is now "for truth not facts!".
Click to expand...

I dont care so much about the past, I care about what they are doing today.
 
AProudLefty said:
Conflate? Have you read those quotes? Can you tell which quotes belong to Carlson? If that isn't concerning to you, then I have no idea what to say to you.
Click to expand...

I know what ones Carson said, and If I didn't. I could just simple run word search on his shows transcripts.

This is a stupid game.
 
Oborosen said:
I know what ones Carson said, and If I didn't. I could just simple run word search on his shows transcripts.

This is a stupid game.
Click to expand...

Why is it a stupid game? If this thread was about comparing a Democrat's speeches with, say, Stalin's speeches, you'd be going oh hell yes!
 
AProudLefty said:
Why is it a stupid game? If this thread was about comparing a Democrat's speeches with, say, Stalin's speeches, you'd be going oh hell yes!
Click to expand...

Actually no, now if the democrat were pushing for sanctions and policies like Stalin's. We'd possibly have some issues to mull over here.
 
Oborosen said:
Actually no, now if the democrat were pushing for sanctions and policies like Stalin's. We'd possibly have some issues to mull over here.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're talking about. Stalin was just a random example. If a left wing terrorist said the same thing a left wing TV talk host said. You'd find it concerning.
 
AProudLefty said:
Not sure what you're talking about. Stalin was just a random example. If a left wing terrorist said the same thing a left wing TV talk host said. You'd find it concerning.
Click to expand...

I don't care what someone who's most likely certifiably insane says. Unless I have a session with them, they're basically out of my purview.

It would be fruitless to jump as such. Because some of them could even claim they received messages from long dead presidents, and they'd be hearing it all from a throw rug.
 
Oborosen said:
I don't care what someone who's most likely certifiably insane says. Unless I have a session with them, they're basically out of my purview.

It would be fruitless to jump as such. Because some of them could even claim they received messages from long dead presidents, and they'd be hearing it all from a throw rug.
Click to expand...

Let's take Maxie as an example. You've seen some people here ranting about how she was responsible for retards harrassing people and saying the same speech. I mean whats good for gander and all that.
 
AProudLefty said:
Let's take Maxie as an example. You've seen some people here ranting about how she was responsible for retards harrassing people and saying the same speech. I mean whats good for gander and all that.
Click to expand...

Maxine Waters you mean?

Yes, she actually instructed her own supporters to go out and harass people, as verbatim.
 
Oborosen said:
Maxine Waters you mean?

Yes, she actually instructed her own supporters to go out and harass people, as verbatim.
Click to expand...

Nope but that is beside th3 poimt. Both sides take speeches seriously and do it. Friar Tucker retarded speeches, if one want to be consistent, are what emboiled the actions.
 
AProudLefty said:
Nope but that is beside th3 poimt. Both sides take speeches seriously and do it. Friar Tucker retarded speeches, if one want to be consistent, are what emboiled the actions.
Click to expand...

No that is not besides the point. You have one who is speaking generally, and sharing their own opinion about something, and the other is actively telling people to go out and do something.

Two very different qualifiers.
 
Oborosen said:
No that is not besides the point. You have one who is speaking generally, and sharing their own opinion about something, and the other is actively telling people to go out and do something.

Two very different qualifiers.
Click to expand...

See you just proved my point. Maxine never told them to do anything violent.
 
AProudLefty said:
See you just proved my point. Maxine never told them to do anything violent.
Click to expand...

Neither did Carlson. But that is not generally necessary.

Seeing as Maxine was telling her supporters to actively go out and harass others. Which could easily lead to violence.

Has Carlson done the same?
 
Oborosen said:
Neither did Carlson. But that is not generally necessary.

Seeing as Maxine was telling her supporters to actively go out and harass others. Which could easily lead to violence.

Has Carlson done the same?
Click to expand...

Sorry can't discuss more because beer. Lol.
It was just a weak example. Basically they heard a siren call to do something. We can continue but tmw I'll be more disposed. Lol
 
AProudLefty said:
Sorry can't discuss more because beer. Lol.
It was just a weak example. Basically they heard a siren call to do something. We can continue but tmw I'll be more disposed. Lol
Click to expand...

right.... :roll:
 
NWRatCon said:
This was an article in the Guardian, which I think counts as a Mainstream news source - except it is not American, so maybe not. Guess who said it: Tucker Carlson or a far-right shooter versusor thisNow, if you think this is a trick question, it is not. It is just very, very difficult to distinguish between Tucker Carlson's stated beliefs and the run-of-the-mill white supremacist terrorist.
Click to expand...

You know, its barely tolerable for you to waste our time with offering a transparently disingenuous narrative based on an elementary logical fallacy, but it is worse than intolerable to read one that is BOTH incompetent and disingenuous.

The logical fallacy should have been obvious to you, e.g.; Robert Kennedy "sounded" like a communist when speaking against racism, ergo he must be a communist?

The incompetency of is almost as obvious. While the author (and you) generously quote Tucker Carlson, both of you fail to provide quotes of white supremacy that prove he is "indistinguishable" in viewpoint. It's rather like quoting Robert Kennedy's anti-racism views and concluding "well that sounds indistinguishable from communists and I can't tell the difference". Kinda dumb, no?

But if we are into making unsupported assertions, here is mine: the author and your viewpoints are indistinguishable from totalitarian international socialism (Stalinism).

See how easy it is to just "say stuff"?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is simply nonsense to even try to equate Tucker Carlson to a "crime boss".
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. How does one define a crime boss?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, that is precisely the point - they do not think rationally so assigning any reason for their actions is foolish.
Click to expand...

Here I really have to take issue with your statement. Is murder ever a "rational" action? I would submit, no. Yet people are prosecuted every day for committing the act, whatever their motivation. Only in very rare circumstances is someone acquitted "by reason of insanity", and this would not be one of them. Was the act carefully planned? Yes. Malice aforethought. Did the perpetrator know right from wrong? Yes. Not insane. Motive is, therefore entirely relevant, particularly when, as here, the motivation is terror and racial/ethnic animus. I would venture to say that you would not use the dame standard when discussing an Islamic terrorist's murder spree. So, pray tell, what is the difference?
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
You know, its barely tolerable for you to waste our time with offering a transparently disingenuous narrative based on an elementary logical fallacy, but it is worse than intolerable to read one that is BOTH incompetent and disingenuous.

The logical fallacy should have been obvious to you, e.g.; Robert Kennedy "sounded" like a communist when speaking against racism, ergo he must be a communist?

The incompetency of is almost as obvious. While the author (and you) generously quote Tucker Carlson, both of you fail to provide quotes of white supremacy that prove he is "indistinguishable" in viewpoint. It's rather like quoting Robert Kennedy's anti-racism views and concluding "well that sounds indistinguishable from communists and I can't tell the difference". Kinda dumb, no?

But if we are into making unsupported assertions, here is mine: the author and your viewpoints are indistinguishable from totalitarian international socialism (Stalinism).

See how easy it is to just "say stuff"?
Click to expand...

I was trying to decide if this post is just dripping with disingenuity, or just remarkably idiotic. Then I realized it was both! Congratulations, a twofer. Now, if you have nothing to contribute to this conversation, please go here: 8chan. Your views will be welcome there. Oh wait... apparently not.
 
Torus34 said:
One of the pleasures of the intellectual life is to seek out mappings -- one-to-one correspondences between two apparently unrelated concepts. Another is seeking the opposite. Here's a case in point.

At present, the United States of America is undergoing a period in which a liking for an authoritarian sameness of culture, ideology and belief [Ed.: And a putting-down of differences,] has found a mouthpiece par excellence. We see it expressed time and again in many forms, including the last post which attempts to make it the responsibility for an immigrant to give up all and become 'American'.*

Meanwhile, there's the Constitution of the United States of America. It specifically limits the federal government's responsibilities through enumeration and the statement that whatever isn't specifically given to the federal government is the responsibility of the States. There's 50 of them at last count. 50 States which are free to go their own way in everything but a few enumerated areas. It's as if the founders of the Constitution were saying, 'Vive la différence!' [Ed.: But wait. That's French, not English, man. What's the matter with you? If you don't like the language, go back where you came from.]

* That particular argument neatly sidesteps the undeniable fact that the early arrivals of Europeans to what is now the United States of America did not assimilate with the culture of the Indians who inhabited the land surrounding them. That carries with it the assumption of the superiority of the culture of the Pilgrims. And so it goes.
Click to expand...

so then you intend for us to allow new immigrants to maintain the cultural practices of those over 120 years ago when we did things the wrong way and the world (not just the US) was all about might makes right? the essence of the "2 wrongs make a right" argument?
 
Hypothetical said:
so then you intend for us to allow new immigrants to maintain the cultural practices of those over 120 years ago when we did things the wrong way and the world (not just the US) was all about might makes right? the essence of the "2 wrongs make a right" argument?
Click to expand...

Hi! I intended nothing other than make the statements in the quoted post.

Regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom