Tucker Carlson

[maxparrish]

Lol, he clearly stated Jeffs was no accessory to the marriages. Either he is a moron and doesn't understand what accessory means, or he is a liar. Which is it?

Unsupported claim. Please provide evidence that he stated that "Jeffs was no accessory to the marriage(s)".

 

[veritas1]

lol...Argument: I don't like what's on the tape; blame the person who found the tape. :roll:

I didn't comment on the tape. The tape wasn't the subject. Media Matters and their transparent objective was the subject.

 

[veritas1]

:lamo
You don't seriously believe you get to decide what Media Matters' "job" is, do you? They are under no obligation to be "non partisan". That is NOT a requirement for 501(c)3 tax-exempt status. Why do you keep suggesting it is? Could it be that you are only repeating the fake news you get from FoxNews? I believe it probably is.


How much "dirt" is the conservative Media Research Center (also a 501(c)3) "digging up" on FoxNews? Any? Like so many of rely upon FoxNews and/or other conservative media for their "news", you are operating under a false premise. You seem to believe that 501(c)3s are mandated to be "non-partisan" (which is WRONG)...and that that fake mandate ONLY applies left-leaning 501(c)3s, and not to right-leaning ones like MRC (about which you have NEVER expressed such concern or criticism). So, you're guilty of being BOTH poorly informed AND a hypocrite, in this instance.


See above. Please educate yourself on this issue. Education is the more reliable cure for irrational, emotional ideology.



If they "destroy" FoxNews by simply exposing the lies and propaganda that passes as "news" on that network....good for them. That would be a good thing. The real issue here is that conservatives snowflakes have been brainwashed into believing that ANY simple criticism of them, or their views, is an unfair attack on them or their opinions...or, most absurdly, their 1st Amendment rights.

NEWSFLASH: You are entitled to express your opinions freely. You are NOT entitled to "freedom from criticism" of your opinions, by others. Those who criticism the opinions of conservatives have the same 1A rights as conservatives. Stop being such snowflakes.

1. Media Matters is a Soros funded attack dog. As Brock said, their opposition to Fox news is akin to "guerrilla warfare and sabotage." That is their words, not mine.

2. The question is not whether MRC is digging up personal dirt on Fox News personalities but whether they are digging up personal dirt on any media personalities. The Media Matter-MRC comparison is apples and oranges.

3. Media Matters is not addressing the content of Carlson's positions and offering some fact based counter-point. They are out to destroy him personally and, thereby, have Fox cave in to strident leftwing voices wanting him removed. It is removal that is the goal, not an airing of political or ideological differences. This is inarguable yet you act as if what we can all observe, is not happening.

4. Conservatives are increasingly NOT free to express their opinions; not on FB, on Twitter, at Google, at Amazon and in many other corporations and certainly not on most college campuses. Doing so incurs censure and penalties if not outright silencing or banning. Maybe even physical attacks as we saw at Berkeley. Again, this is no secret. But, as I said, we are not going to lay down for the left, EVER.

 

[ataraxia]

The guy is human garbage.

I would have thought such knuckle dragging Neanderthals and dinosaurs like Tucker had gone extinct by the late 20th century. Man was I wrong. They’re back, and stronger than ever. Watching America since 2016 is like watching one of those really scary scenes from Jurassic Park. Just when you thought they were extinct...!

 

[Nap]

The girls were as young as 12yo.

Your need to lie about it shows that even you know how deplorable he is

In order for it to be a lie would be to assume that I knew they were 12. I was going by Tucker's comments that said they were 16.

 

[veritas1]

I would have thought such knuckle dragging Neanderthals and dinosaurs like Tucker had gone extinct by the late 20th century. Man was I wrong. They’re back, and stronger than ever. Watching America since 2016 is like watching one of those really scary scenes from Jurassic Park. Just when you thought they were extinct...!

No doubt you feel the same about Bill Clinton's 26 flights on sex offender Epstein's "Lolita Express." Do you think Billy was simply talking about underage girls or doing something else?:shock:

 

[sangha]

In order for it to be a lie would be to assume that I knew they were 12. I was going by Tucker's comments that said they were 16.

So your defense is "I don't know what I am talking about "

Well played, Sir :lamo

 

[ataraxia]

No doubt you feel the same about Bill Clinton's 26 flights on sex offender Epstein's "Lolita Express." Do you think Billy was simply talking about underage girls or doing something else?:shock:

I don’t know. Why don’t we ask The Donald?

”I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it: Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
-Donald Trump

 

[veritas1]

I don’t know. Why don’t we ask The Donald?

Which has what to do with Carlson? And what to do with Billy's two dozen flights? The point is that people living in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

 

[Nap]

So your defense is "I don't know what I am talking about "

Well played, Sir :lamo

We are talking about Tucker's comments, and he specifically stated 16 years old. It isn't my fault he is wrong.

 

[ataraxia]

Which has what to do with Carlson? And what to do with Billy's two dozen flights? The point is that people living in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

The difference is only one side was telling us “traditional values” is what makes it different, and define it. Well so much for that. If you don’t even have that now, what do you have left, your endless outrage over Obama’s tan suit in the Oval Office?

 

[ataraxia]

We are talking about Tucker's comments, and he specifically stated 16 years old. It isn't my fault he is wrong.

So no outrage about lies, inaccuracies, and distortions, I see. But when Obama said you can keep your doctor, and Fox supposedly found some poor sap somewhere who couldn’t... why now that’s grounds for some serious outrage, right?

 

[Hatuey]

I would have thought such knuckle dragging Neanderthals and dinosaurs like Tucker had gone extinct by the late 20th century. Man was I wrong. They’re back, and stronger than ever. Watching America since 2016 is like watching one of those really scary scenes from Jurassic Park. Just when you thought they were extinct...!

They're led by a few zealously proud morons who wouldn't hack it at a regular 9-5.

This is their swan song.

Believe me.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[veritas1]

The difference is only one side was telling us “traditional values” is what makes it different, and define it. Well so much for that. If you don’t even have that now, what do you have left, your endless outrage over Obama’s tan suit in the Oval Office?

Everyone should be for morality. That many people fail in the quest isn't news. Tucker Carlson is far, far from the worst offender and the outrage over what he said is exaggerated simply because he's on Fox. The guy who heads Media Matters has made anti-semitic comments and other observations which the people attacking Carlson should care about but it doesn't seem they do. If we're going to go all "morality speech police" on people, let's do it across the board. That is not happening.

 

[calamity]

Everyone should be for morality. That many people fail in the quest isn't news. Tucker Carlson is far, far from the worst offender and the outrage over what he said is exaggerated simply because he's on Fox. The guy who heads Media Matters has made anti-semitic comments and other observations which the people attacking Carlson should care about but it doesn't seem they do. If we're going to go all "morality speech police" on people, let's do it across the board. That is not happening.

Shoot all the messengers you like. It never takes away from Carlson being a scumbag who defended a child molester.

 

[Winston]

There is nothing to hide. A left ideological soldier spent weeks listening through a hundred hours of taped broadcasts looking for embarrassing or scandalous material on Tucker. He found what was there and MM made edited hay out of it to de-platform Tucker.

IF there were nothing to hide, Tucker wouldn't be hiding from a debate on the merits. But, why not go ahead and call Iraqi's primitive monkeys and defend a child rapist on air again. Why not do that? If there's nothing to hide, why won't Tucker call Iraqi's primitive monkeys on his show?

It is what it is - which in Tucker's view is making a mountain over a grain of sand. Your opinion may be different. But if you think there is something hidden, I encourage you to play it backward and see if there is a coded message to the illuminati - or at least enroll in mind-reading school. :roll:

There are no magic hyroglyphs at play here. Tucker is just hiding the content of the interview from his audience. Because it's offensive and embarrassing. Understandable.

I don't believe I heard anything atrocious, especially so in context. Therefore there is nothing to "explain away". However, if your ear (or eye) is so tone deaf so as to not know that making light of a legal situation can also contain a point, then I doubt Tucker or I have any hope of educating you - especially so when you contemptuously ad hom a person as cowardly.

Jeffs is a convicted child rapist doing life. But, I guess every monster has apologists.

Either your sense of humor and meaning is stunted by partisan zealotry, or its not.

Tucker's comments weren't funny, witty, or clever. I get that you become a caricature of your views when putting on a show for people, but Tucker drew upon his own views to begin with, they were just exaggerated greatly. Tucker is a misogynist, a xenophobe, and anti-Muslim, and he drew upon those views when inflating his personality on the show. I understand that much. Some people do that to try and be funny.

 

[maxparrish]

IF there were nothing to hide, Tucker wouldn't be hiding from a debate on the merits. But, why not go ahead and call Iraqi's primitive monkeys and defend a child rapist on air again. Why not do that? If there's nothing to hide, why won't Tucker call Iraqi's primitive monkeys on his show?

Except he is not hiding from a debate, he has explicitly offered to debate his critics on his show for all to see (who wish to see). If the roaches at Media Matters or the Washington Post wish to debate, they only need to contact him.

Heck, why don't you ask him? If he can't find anyone else with the balls to debate him on air, he might offer an opportunity to one of the basement shmegle's to come under the bright lights.

There are no magic hyroglyphs at play here. Tucker is just hiding the content of the interview from his audience. Because it's offensive and embarrassing. Understandable.

What are you babbling about? The air castles of "content" that occupy your day dreams?

Jeffs is a convicted child rapist doing life. But, I guess every monster has apologists.

At the time most of the quoted comments were made Jeffs was an accused rapist because he facilitated a wedding, and when he was convicted, it was overturned and the charges dropped - confirming Tucker was right to question the appropriateness of the charge.

In 2011 Jeffs was convicted of a different but ACTUAL child rape, 5 years later - which Tucker had no objection too.

Tucker's comments weren't funny, witty, or clever. I get that you become a caricature of your views when putting on a show for people, but Tucker drew upon his own views to begin with, they were just exaggerated greatly. Tucker is a misogynist, a xenophobe, and anti-Muslim, and he drew upon those views when inflating his personality on the show. I understand that much. Some people do that to try and be funny.

Now you've moved from factual ignorance into ranting unsupported characterizations - apparently thinking that if you keep saying the same pejoratives over and over makes your lame case stronger. Rest assured, it doesn't.

In using our own initial complaint I have demonstrated, through quoted content and explanation, that your lurid characterization of the Jeffs issue was far too stupid for serous people (or Tucker) to debate. I have also demonstrated this is one reason that Tucker shouldn't be participating in a spitting contest with disingenuous fools who have no desire to be accurate or truthful.

That he is willing to debate publicly this and other comments is likely far too generous: when an opponent hurls a hundred lies and each lie is half-way around the world before you finish disproving it, its a huge time waster (and it keeps you on the defensive which, by the way, is the goal of the liar).

If you were a reasonable person you would read the transcript provided, noted how the accusation was misleading and unfair, and then man-up to questioning the judgement of organizations like media matters. Rather, you chose return to mud-gunning Tucker with the same recycled mud.

That says enough.

 

[Winston]

Except he is not hiding from a debate, he has explicitly offered to debate his critics on his show for all to see (who wish to see). If the roaches at Media Matters or the Washington Post wish to debate, they only need to contact him.

You're telling me that there is no debate on his show due to want of effort on the left? :lamo Sure.. :roll:The right is actual far less tolerant of dissenting and opposing opinions than they let on. There is no debating this issue on his show because Tucker is embarrassed and knows he can just throw the base more red meat.

Heck, why don't you ask him? If he can't find anyone else with the balls to debate him on air, he might offer an opportunity to one of the basement shmegle's to come under the bright lights.

We aren't in the basement.

At the time most of the quoted comments were made Jeffs was an accused rapist because he facilitated a wedding, and when he was convicted, it was overturned and the charges dropped - confirming Tucker was right to question the appropriateness of the charge.

appeal to authority noted.

In 2011 Jeffs was convicted of a different but ACTUAL child rape, 5 years later - which Tucker had no objection too.

During the 2009 comments from Tucker Carlson, Jeffs had been indicted for child rape. And I don't agree with Tucker's previous legal analysis from 2006 for two primary reasons:

1. The girls objected to the marriage and told Jeffs they did not consent.
2. Jeffs was the leader of the cult and exercised supreme authority of the goings ons within the compound.

Pretty much the same arguments as the prosecution.

Now you've moved from factual ignorance into ranting unsupported characterizations - apparently thinking that if you keep saying the same pejoratives over and over makes your lame case stronger. Rest assured, it doesn't.

Calling Iraqi's primitive monkeys and telling women to be quiet is bigotry and misogyny. Sorry your having a tough time with that.

In using our own initial complaint I have demonstrated, through quoted content and explanation, that your lurid characterization of the Jeffs issue was far too stupid for serous people (or Tucker) to debate. I have also demonstrated this is one reason that Tucker shouldn't be participating in a spitting contest with disingenuous fools who have no desire to be accurate or truthful.

No, my position has the advantage of Jeffs being a serial child rapist with a life sentence. I would argue as I have above, all the reasonable points and ones you cannot refute.

That he is willing to debate publicly this and other comments is likely far too generous: when an opponent hurls a hundred lies and each lie is half-way around the world before you finish disproving it, its a huge time waster (and it keeps you on the defensive which, by the way, is the goal of the liar).

If you were a reasonable person you would read the transcript provided, noted how the accusation was misleading and unfair, and then man-up to questioning the judgement of organizations like media matters. Rather, you chose return to mud-gunning Tucker with the same recycled mud.

That says enough.

No, you have acted an apologist for Tucker because your hyper partisan viewpoint disallows you from seeing wrongdoing on behalf of one of your beloved mouthpieces. Carlson is running scared from debate because he knows he would go down hard and fast.

 

[eohrnberger]

What really funny is dems mounting this smear campaign against Carlson actually think this is part of the free market when it is the opposite of the free market.

Just proves, once again, Dems (and liberals for that matter) simply don't 'get' free markets, whether it be on purpose or they just can't fathom such a thing, I don't know.

 

[eohrnberger]

The old 'nothing to hide' meme.

'Since when have stopped beating your wife?'
If you've nothing to hide, you'd answer.

Yeah, right. Pretty lame.

 

[Saladin4]

Look for this Dirtbag Carlsen to do a What About tonight on the terrorist atrocity in New Zealand...It was sort of bad but.................................What About What About

 

[noonereal]

Except he is not hiding from a debate,.

You know how many shows this stooge, Tucker, has recorded and not released because someone got the best of him?

He's a hater who can't stand up truths.

 

[maxparrish]

You know how many shows this stooge, Tucker, has recorded and not released because someone got the best of him?

He's a hater who can't stand up truths.

Do you? If not, how about zero?

Moreover, unless you think those that disagree with him are mute, they are more than capable of accepting his challenge under the pre-condition that it will be aired (or aired live).

Any other excuses for the left's fear of taking him up on his offer to debate it?

 

[marke]

Give it a rest. Tucker's own words condemn him. You just can't spin Iraqis are primative monkeys and women are primative. You can't spin his claim that White men built civilization.

Tucker is a White supremacist. He was accused of that long before the tapes.

Racists can accuse Tucker of being racist but that is just the bias talking and not the facts.

 

[marke]

Seriously? You are far too deep in the right-wing echo chamber.
Washington Post isn't my president.

Bad case of selective outrage?