Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Breezy H2O

Tucker Carlson Has Highest-Rated Program In Cable News History

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, satch said:

What’s awful is supporting selective censorship of those with whom you personally disagree.

I think you are mixing a lot of things up here - but every one of us supports selective censorship.  We exercise that right every day, by the choice we make.  We choose who we engage with, whether on TV, radio, newspaper, or message board.

Advertisers make those same choices - in fact, their choices are almost always purely economic, and not related to their own social or moral code (or that of their board/owner).  Advertising is an investment into future business.  When an advertiser believes that the cost of advertising exceeds the future revenue stream - then the smart decision is the stop that advertising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Gator said:

I think you are mixing a lot of things up here - but every one of us supports selective censorship.  We exercise that right every day, by the choice we make.  We choose who we engage with, whether on TV, radio, newspaper, or message board.

Advertisers make those same choices - in fact, their choices are almost always purely economic, and not related to their own social or moral code (or that of their board/owner).  Advertising is an investment into future business.  When an advertiser believes that the cost of advertising exceeds the future revenue stream - then the smart decision is the stop that advertising.

And the good news is there are Cancel Culture warriors who help those advertisers make those decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boston said:

And the good news is there are Cancel Culture warriors who help those advertisers make those decisions.

It is indeed good news.

It means we are evolving as a society, and adopting new moral codes - which only happens when a majority of society approves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Gator said:

It is indeed good news.

It means we are evolving as a society, and adopting new moral codes - which only happens when a majority of society approves.

 

Agreed...hopefully someday we can get to a spot where there is only one regulated message.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Boston said:

Agreed...hopefully someday we can get to a spot where there is only one regulated message.

Hopefully we don't - because that means we have stopped evolving.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tool said:

who?

Trump.

Seriously.  Trump is the most openly-censorious president of my lifetime, and I have very little doubt that he would welcome the authority to regulate who gets to say what in the media.  If you want Trump making those sorts of decisions, you're definitely on the right track.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Gator said:

Hopefully we don't - because that means we have stopped evolving.

 

 

Yes, I know, I was pointing out (obviously not well) the irony of those who support cancel culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, satch said:

Good point. So let’s think about why a show with record setting ratings, and a massive viewing audience, would have poor advertising revenue. Seems like a show to which advertisers would be drawn. Unfortunately, it’s an opportunity they’re compelled to miss in fear of their brand being cancelled by the ever powerful, and increasingly intolerant, liberal social media mob.
 

What other reason could there be? Unless, of course, you honestly  believe that despite Carlson’s massive audience, most advertisers just happen to be politically and morally opposed to his views, and feel so strongly about it that they’ll forego such a prime advertising opportunity. Though, if that’s the case, how can we explain those same advertisers happily being part of O’Reilly’s show, which shared the most of the same views as Carlson’s show?

You mean...capitalism?  Where people speak with their $$$ as far as who they will support and not when it comes to those who chose to advertise with crap like Tucker?  Aren't we supposedly for this free market where people are free to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Boston said:

Yes, I know, I was pointing out (obviously not well) the irony of those who support cancel culture.

I got it. My little thinker was just pondering the implications of one voice and cancel culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, rockaction said:

So Carlson's op-ed program should be subject to government sanction because the airwaves are somehow public. My opinion is a) they shouldn't be public and b) we ought to be really careful about what we determine is past the line in terms of opinion

I am strictly against government control over media. I do think people and corporations have a duty to the public. Tucker Carlson himself sanctioned vigilante violence. To me, that's not ok and the owners should rip him off the air. Political violence is a danger to any society, it is a disease and it is not easily gotten rid of.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Tool said:

Show me a quote from Don Lemon that is similar. 

Why does it have to be similar? If you get to selectively decide what should and shouldn’t be allowed on tv, shouldn’t I and everyone else get to do the same? Or did I miss the vote that elected you as arbiter in this matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, satch said:

What’s awful is supporting selective censorship of those with whom you personally disagree.

I can’t stand Don Lemon, and I believe some of the things he says incite hate and divisiveness, but I’d never suggest he be taken off the air. I simply change the channel.

A private company taking appropriate steps over its own private functioning to conform to natural, normal, normal duty to serve the public responsibly is not selective censorship.

Let me know when Lemon (who I also am not a fan of, and who has said plenty a dumb thing in the past) engages in actual justification for militant vigilantism. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

To me, that's not ok and the owners shoudl rip him off the air. Political violence is a danger to any society, it is a disease and it is not easily gotten rid of.

I don't disagree. Political violence is very much a danger to society, as is the non-execution of the law. Something will fill the vacuum in the instance of non-execution and it will be mob justice and political violence. It's a sad state all around. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, The Gator said:

I think you are mixing a lot of things up here - but every one of us supports selective censorship.  We exercise that right every day, by the choice we make.  We choose who we engage with, whether on TV, radio, newspaper, or message board.

 

You’re saying exactly what I’m saying. Calling for Tucker Carlson to be taken off the air is un-American. We all have the freedom to simply change the channel. But that’s not selective censorship, it’s personal choice.

Edited by satch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I don't disagree. Political violence is very much a danger to society, as is the non-execution of the law. Something will fill the vacuum in the instance of non-execution and it will be mob justice and political violence. It's a sad state all around. 

When I saw the 11-second clip from Tucker Carlson, I thought that's what he was saying.  I assume that that clip was yanked out of a broader context in which he was justifying vigilantism, because otherwise it's hard to understand why people are so bent out of shape over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

When I saw the 11-second clip from Tucker Carlson, I thought that's what he was saying.  I assume that that clip was yanked out of a broader context in which he was justifying vigilantism, because otherwise it's hard to understand why people are so bent out of shape over it.

Oh, okay. I haven't even seen the clip. I was just commenting on government oversight of cable channels and the viability and desirability thereof. It turned into a quick comment about abdicating responsibility in executing the law. Something will always serve as a justice system. It depends on your penchant for liberty which system we want to use -- that of vigilantism or that of courts, procedures, and norms. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Oh, okay. I haven't even seen the clip. I was just commenting on government oversight of cable channels and the viability and desirability thereof. It turned into a quick comment about abdicating responsibility in executing the law. Something will always serve as a justice system. It depends on your penchant for liberty which system we want to use -- that of vigilantism or that of courts, procedures, and norms. 

I get it -- I was just agreeing with you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

I get it -- I was just agreeing with you.

Oh yeah, I was just clarifying how the thread went. I was going on because I really haven't seen Tucker and don't care to. I find him and his political contortions saddening. He used to work at the Weekly Standard and was a legitimate conservative voice. No longer, it seems. 

But pointing out the vacuum that exists and will be filled is not something that should get one kicked off the air if that was his point. That's political philosophy 151 or so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a legit question. :shrug: 

Did people really not expect this kind of violent reaction to seeing what is going on around the country. Violence breeds violence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boston said:

I think he was specifying that if Lemon ever lauded political violence, he should be taken off the air, but that he hasn't done that of yet. In fact, Lemon condemned the riots the other night. I'm no liberal, but SID is saying that Tucker crossed a very sensitive line in advocating vigilantism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

When I saw the 11-second clip from Tucker Carlson, I thought that's what he was saying.  I assume that that clip was yanked out of a broader context in which he was justifying vigilantism, because otherwise it's hard to understand why people are so bent out of shape over it.

He was not justifying vigilantism...his point was that what happened (in a broad sense) was inevitable due to our leaders allowing anarchy and violence on the streets...if you allow Mad Max behavior to go on without ramifications don't be surprised by the anarchy that will follow such as a 17 year old who suddenly feels like he is The Equalizer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

I think he was specifying that if Lemon ever lauded political violence, he should be taken off the air, but that he hasn't done that of yet. In fact, Lemon condemned the riots the other night. I'm no liberal, but SID is saying that Tucker crossed a very sensitive line in advocating vigilantism.

Ok...I will remove that post because it is not pertinent...but it is false Carlson is advocating...he is stating it is a result of a lack of leadership which is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boston said:

Ok...I will remove that post because it is not pertinent...but it is false Carlson is advocating...he is stating it is a result of a lack of leadership which is correct.

Okay. I believe you. I still haven't watched the clip. I'm just trying to explain Saints' position, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jamny said:

Seems like a legit question. :shrug: 

Did people really not expect this kind of violent reaction to seeing what is going on around the country. Violence breeds violence.

Seems like a great time to defund the police!!!!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Boston said:

He was not justifying vigilantism...his point was that what happened (in a broad sense) was inevitable due to our leaders allowing anarchy and violence on the streets...if you allow Mad Max behavior to go on without ramifications don't be surprised by the anarchy that will follow such as a 17 year old who suddenly feels like he is The Equalizer.

Okay, but how is that different from "If our leaders allow police to behave this way without ramifications, don't be surprised when people start burning down local businesses?"  Both are superficially just explanations, but they nearly always get trotted out as excuses.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Boston said:

I would prefer we stay on topic...If you watch this 32 minute clip about the guy getting kicked in the head in Portland you should not be surprised by anything...it is beyond creepy that this took place in one of our cities...it is anarchy in our streets and our leaders have allowed idiots who could care less about police brutality or equality to run rampant with zero ramifications...this **** has nothing to do with George Floyd or any legit cause anymore...I don't know how anyone can be surprised by what happened last night, disgusted/horrified, definitely...but not surprised.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-attack-witness-police-videos

 

That’s awful and I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The country is a mess right now but Tucker is just throwing more gas on the fire with his show. He just feeds the rage machine.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, satch said:

Good point. So let’s think about why a show with record setting ratings, and a massive viewing audience, would have poor advertising revenue. Seems like a show to which advertisers would be drawn. Unfortunately, it’s an opportunity they’re compelled to miss in fear of their brand being cancelled by the ever powerful, and increasingly intolerant, liberal social media mob.

Wasn't the POTUS just telling everyone to boycott Goodyear tires the other day on Twitter?

Haven't heard anyone call Trump a liberal for a while.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

That’s awful and I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The country is a mess right now but Tucker is just throwing more gas on the fire with his show. He just feeds the rage machine.

We will have to respectfully agree to disagree because I believe he is holding them accountable...and if you watch his show he takes plenty of shots at the right as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, satch said:

Seems like a great time to defund the police!!!!   

Yes...it does...well not actually "defund" them...but reform them quite a lot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jamny said:

Seems like a legit question. :shrug: 

Did people really not expect this kind of violent reaction to seeing what is going on around the country. Violence breeds violence.

No, I didn't expect 17 year-olds to be walking the streets with AR-15 after curfew while Police thanked him for his efforts.

I really didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Yes...it does...well not actually "defund" them...but reform them quite a lot.

 

I think most agree that police reform is needed. Better training, better hiring practices, more thorough background checks, etc. Unfortunately, the current movement is calling to defund the police, which would actually make it much harder for real police reform to happen. 

Edited by satch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, satch said:

I think most agree that police reform is needed. Better training, better hiring practices, more thorough background checks, etc. Unfortunately, the current movement is calling to defund the police, which would actually make it much harder for real police reform to happen. 

Yeah...the overall message and saying defund has been bad.  I think most agree there.  But the point of lowering funding and the responsibilities of police is part of that reform.  And it has merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, satch said:

I think most agree that police reform is needed. Better training, better hiring practices, more thorough background checks, etc. Unfortunately, the current movement is calling to defund the police, which would actually make it much harder for real police reform to happen. 

Depends what the current movement is. I don't think it's very clear. The NBA is not necessarily in support of that. Doc Rivers for example explicitly said that is not their goal. It's messy which is kind of the issue with liberal politics right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skoo said:

No, I didn't expect 17 year-olds to be walking the streets with AR-15 after curfew while Police thanked him for his efforts.

I really didn't.

I completely agree with the bolded. Sickening and unacceptable.

Te rest? I don't see how you couldn't see it coming. All these white kids are out there doing their LARP'ing ninja act, it was only a matter of time before militia types got involved.

Did you not see the Proud Boys in Portland over the weekend. This will only get worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Boston said:

We will have to respectfully agree to disagree because I believe he is holding them accountable...and if you watch his show he takes plenty of shots at the right as well.

Who is being held accountable by him angrily ranting on TV 5 nights a week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Who is being held accountable by him angrily ranting on TV 5 nights a week?

Are you a regular viewer of his show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Who is being held accountable by him angrily ranting on TV 5 nights a week?

If I might answer that without even knowing, I'd guess the elected officials in those areas refusing to execute the law. He's probably targeted them and let his viewers know their names, when they're up for election ,etc. That's just a guess, though. It is a form of accountability, however odious one finds Tucker or his tactics.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamny said:

Are you a regular viewer of his show?

I am not. I am just curious who or what has been held responsible for their actions based on Tucker's TV show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Yeah...the overall message and saying defund has been bad.  I think most agree there.  But the point of lowering funding and the responsibilities of police is part of that reform.  And it has merit.

Part of the problem is that so many have spent so much time and effort disrespecting and vilifying the police as a whole, that they would look and feel incredibly foolish admitting now that not only do we need the police, but they are a critical component to our society.

Edited by satch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, satch said:

Part of the problem is that so many have spent so much time and effort disrespecting and vilifying the police as a whole, that they would look and feel incredibly foolish admitting now that not only do we need the police, but they are a critical component to our society.

Not sure any of them (at least any of those actually leading these things and not just out there being nuts) have stated we don't need the police in some form or fashion.  Nor do i believe they villify all police.  No more than the police is villifying all of the protesters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rockaction said:

If I might answer that without even knowing, I'd guess the elected officials in those areas refusing to execute the law. He's probably targeted them and let his viewers know their names, when they're up for election ,etc. That's just a guess, though. It is a form of accountability, however odious one finds Tucker or his tactics.

 

Fair point there. Sad state of affairs if people living in a small city in America need to turn to a National talk show out NYC to figure out how to vote in their local elections, but it is a form of holding people responsible. Of course, from what I can tell of what I have seen, he holds certain people more accountable than others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, satch said:

Part of the problem is that so many have spent so much time and effort vilifying the police as a whole, that they would look and feel incredibly foolish admitting now that not only do we need the police, but they need to be optimized. 

There is no they. Not in any organized sense though. BLM has not official platform saying defund the police. The Democratic Party doesn't either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

There is no they. Not in any organized sense though. BLM has not official platform saying defund the police. The Democratic Party doesn't either. 

Yes there is. And they do say defund the police.

It's right here. On their website, bro. https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-defunding-the-police-really-means/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ilov80s said:

Ok I read the page of what they stood for. I am mistaken.

Happens to all of us. It is a movement that picks up steam even though it is decentralized. There seems to be a commonality among chapters in terms of behavior, what they are organized to do, etc.

BLM is totally different than simply black lives mattering. I've been saying it ad nauseum for weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ilov80s said:

Ok I read the page of what they stood for. I am mistaken.

So are most of the people supporting BLM. Most people have no idea what they stand for. Supporting the black community and supporting BLM are two very different things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.