What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Tucker Carlson: probably not in deep trouble anymore, but he should be. (1 Viewer)

I’m sorry but some of you are so irrationally angry. Actual high ranking members of our military have called Tucker out for what he said. Allowing people to have a ponytail isn’t going to hurt the effectiveness of our armed forces. A pregnant woman isn’t hurting our effectiveness either. It’s not like we are sending an 8 month pregnant woman into a raid on OBL. Come on guys, if you respect the military then maybe trust their judgement over the Skip Bayless of politics. 

 
timschochet said:
It’s not too complicated (for me.) 

1. When we’re talking about airplanes, I trust the engineer and the pilot. 
2. When we’re talking about a pandemic, I trust doctors and public health experts. 
3. When we’re talking about the military, I trust the Pentagon and the Chiefs of Staff. 
 

When right wing talk show hosts (and let’s not kid ourselves, it’s always the right wing ones who do it) try to argue against the experts, I tend to be extremely skeptical. 
Click to expand...
I agree and think it’s clear here who is rational and who is just angry. 

 
moleculo said:
The US military desegregated in 1948 under Harry Truman, almost 20 years before the Civil Rights Act.   Was that a social experiment from the left?
Click to expand...
Today they'll say no.  But then?  The same people who argue against women, immigrants, trans, gay, etc today said yes.  

Racism, xenophobia and white supremacy never really die.  The people who hold those beliefs just gauge whether its currently OK to say it all out loud, or not.  It's like a Stephen King monster -- it comes back no matter how much you think you've killed it the last time it crawled out of its cave.

When [Army Secretary Kenneth Royall] spoke before a hearing held by Truman’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, he told them that the Army was not meant to be “an instrument for social evolution,” by which he meant it did not want racial integration. He justified segregation by raising concerns about the morale of white troops, especially Southern ones. Many Army volunteers are white Southerners, he said, and “it is a well-known fact that close personal association with Negroes is distasteful to a large percentage of Southern whites.”
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
EXACTLY.  :thumbup:

There is no issue.  The military isn't supposed to be a social experiment.  It's supposed to be for our strongest, fastest and best people.  The military is there to smash and break things in a quick and decisive manner.  It's not for checking boxes so some bleeding hearts sitting on a couch with nothing to do can feel better about themselves.
Click to expand...
I’ve met and known hundreds, probably over a thousand members of the military, and the majority of them did not smash and break things as part of their day to day job. Some are mechanics. Some are procurement clerks. Some are project managers. Some are engineers.  I agree that we should strive to employ the best and the brightest in our nation’s military - and some of those are women who get pregnant. When it comes to the flight suits, etc. I don’t think it’s a social experiment to have properly fitting uniforms. I am honestly shucked that this is in any way remotely controversial. For all the respect we claim to have for the members of our military, why would we complain about providing them with properly fitting uniforms and gear?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops said:
I think it is something like less than 10% of military personnel ever see combat. The military should make reasonable accomodations whenever possible, IMO
Click to expand...
Why?

It's the military....purely voluntary...and as Tim has pointed out....if you haven 't served...your opinion about it counts for squat.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
I’ve met and known hundreds, probably over a thousand members of the military, and the majority of them did not smash and break things as part of their day to day job. Some are mechanics. Some are procurement clerks. Some are project managers. Some are engineers.  I agree that we should strive to employ the best and the brightest in our nation’s military - and some of those are women who get pregnant. When it comes to the flight suits, etc. I don’t think it’s a social experiment to have properly fitting uniforms. I am honestly shucked that this is in any way remotely controversial. For all the respect we claim to have for the members of our military, why would we complain about providing them with properly fitting uniforms and gear?
Click to expand...
This

Again...as Tim pointed out....if you haven't served....

...and there are now, and have been for a very long time, male and female uniforms....including maternity uniforms for those who identify as females and get pregnant.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
This

Again...as Tim pointed out....if you haven't served....
Click to expand...
I’ve probably spent more time on military bases than most here. And if folks want to get their panties in a bunch (pun intended) because Tucker Carlson tells them they should be outraged, I say have at it if they want to waste their energy. I find it odd, but again some folks seem to thrive on it. 

Edit to add:  I think getting outraged about Tucker’s comments is similarly a waste of time and energy. I think we all know that this is his brand.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
I’ve probably spent more time on military bases than most here. And if folks want to get their parties in a bunch (pun intended) because Tucker Carlson tells them they should be outraged, I say have at it if they want to waste their energy. I find it odd, but again some folks seem to thrive on it. 
Click to expand...
Subject to the UCMJ?
Or....not?

 
Opie said:
Why?

It's the military....purely voluntary...and as Tim has pointed out....if you haven 't served...your opinion about it counts for squat.
Click to expand...
How about the opinion of our current president? Or our last president? Or the one before that? Do their opinion count? None of them served. Or how about Tucker Carlson's opinion? Or Ted Cruz? Or Nancy Pelosi?

 
the moops said:
How about the opinion of our current president? Or our last president? Or the one before that? Do their opinion count? None of them served. Or how about Tucker Carlson's opinion? Or Ted Cruz? Or Nancy Pelosi?
Click to expand...
According to Tim....no, their opinions do not count..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
Subject to the UCMJ?
Or....not?
Click to expand...
I was not enlisted no. But in any event, I disagree with premise that only those who have served can be informed or have an opinion on the topic, Tucker most definitely included. I don’t think that’s a valid criticism at all. But if serving somehow is necessary to have a valid opinion on the topic, I guess I’d then have to defer to the opinions of military leadership with a lifetime of service over Tucker. Thankfully, that’s not my standard. 

 
bigbottom said:
I was not enlisted no. But in any event, I disagree with premise that only those who have served can be informed or have an opinion on the topic, Tucker most definitely included. I don’t think that’s a valid criticism at all. But if serving somehow is necessary to have a valid opinion on the topic, I guess I’d then have to defer to the opinions of military leadership with a lifetime of service over Tucker. Thankfully, that’s not my standard. 
Click to expand...
I agree.

Therefore, Tucker Carlson's opinion counts about as much as yours...and his.

 
bigbottom said:
Absolutely. Not sure why we’re having the debate or why you questioned whether or not i served. 
Click to expand...
The OP (Tim) claimed that "... Carlson, who has no military experience, is simply ignorant."

I imagine that is isn't Carlson's lack of military experience that makes him ignorant....it's his opposing opinion that does so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
The OP (Tim) claimed that "... Carlson, who has no military experience, is simply ignorant."
Click to expand...
It is possible for people with no military experience to be simply ignorant. Tim's statement isn't self-contradictory or anything.

Personally, I don't think Carlson is simply ignorant. I think he's playing a role, and his character is performatively ignorant. So I disagree with Tim. But I'm not 100% confident in my position. It's not outside the realm of possibility that Tim's take is correct.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm beginning to think there are a lot of premises that are sort of off here.

Not sure that Tucker is out of line simply for criticizing the modern military. That's been a conservative staple since the nineties. Lots of fighting forces being asked to be too domesticated. That's hardly beyond his ken to comment on. I do not know how he has done so, nor will I waste my time on the substance of it. 

But you don't need to be a member of the military to espouse such things, nor are the higher ranking military guys contradicting what he's saying necessarily telling you the truth behind what they're saying. They take their marching orders from civilians, and the high-ranking ones play the advancement game well. They flatter their civilian oversight. So that's another thing to consider. 

I don't necessarily "listen to the generals" when it comes to the military. We've long decided civilian oversight with military input and basic levels of competence will suffice for its function in our society. Are those basic levels being met? That seems to be what conservatives are asking, regardless how Tucker has gone about it. In the end, people like Tucker and me decide upon the level of military fitness we require. Why is this off-limits to him?

Do I defend him? Haven't even heard what he's said, but in reading the thread, I see assumptions about things that seem off.

Just my two cents.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I haven't watched cable news in years.  I wonder if I'm missing anything worthwhile.

Never mind.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call Oliver cable news but I find him a worthwhile watch.  I'm a little surprised he made a main piece about Tucker as most of his topics are very broad and things we as a country should be discussing.  Here's a short list of his most recent topics:

  • Unemployment
  • Police Raids
  • Meatpacking
  • The Next Pandemic
Yes, he's very liberal and hammers the GOP and their supporters a lot.  I'm sure you could find areas where he lets his bias slant things some but overall I think he hits on many important topics that we as a country need to address.  Part of the problem with Oliver is you aren't going to get many on the right to even listen because he's so liberal and brutalizes the right.

 
Yeah, I find Oliver funny (most of the time. The COVID format with no audience hurts) and entertaining. He has brought up a lot of interesting topics that most dont talk about.

But yeah....he is REALLY over the top liberal. So much so that it sometimes makes me question whether all the "facts" from his stories are really facts. (and I'm certainly not a conservative) 

There are some ideas MOSTLY backed by conservatives that I think a reasonable person who leans more to the left can agree with. Oliver demonizes these ideas and insinuates that you're a racist Richard if you agree with them.

 
TLEF316 said:
Yeah, I find Oliver funny (most of the time. The COVID format with no audience hurts) and entertaining. He has brought up a lot of interesting topics that most dont talk about.

But yeah....he is REALLY over the top liberal. So much so that it sometimes makes me question whether all the "facts" from his stories are really facts. (and I'm certainly not a conservative) 

There are some ideas MOSTLY backed by conservatives that I think a reasonable person who leans more to the left can agree with. Oliver demonizes these ideas and insinuates that you're a racist Richard if you agree with them.
Click to expand...
I have similar feelings about Oliver. I think he's funny and I watch the show for that reason alone. But the manner in which he simply assumes that his lefty hot takes should be accepted without debate........well, I'm just not a fan of that format. Why not try persuading the skeptics, yaknow?

As for his take on Carlton, I thought it was fairly well done. He basically let Carlton's words speak for themselves, which is more effective for Oliver's style.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
AAABatteries said:
Part of the problem with Oliver is you aren't going to get many on the right to even listen because he's so liberal and brutalizes the right.
Click to expand...
You just described Ben Shaprio only with the politics flipped around.  

I don't watch him either.
Click to expand...
The difference for me is ones a comedian who doesn’t take himself to seriously and the other couldn’t be further from that.  Both have interesting thoughts and viewpoints at times but I don’t look to either to validate my world view.  I watch one from time to time simply to laugh.  

 
TLEF316 said:
Yeah, I find Oliver funny (most of the time. The COVID format with no audience hurts) and entertaining. He has brought up a lot of interesting topics that most dont talk about.

But yeah....he is REALLY over the top liberal. So much so that it sometimes makes me question whether all the "facts" from his stories are really facts. (and I'm certainly not a conservative) 

There are some ideas MOSTLY backed by conservatives that I think a reasonable person who leans more to the left can agree with. Oliver demonizes these ideas and insinuates that you're a racist Richard if you agree with them.
Click to expand...
If his facts are wrong, it should be easy enough to show.

 
joffer said:
If his facts are wrong, it should be easy enough to show.
Click to expand...
I certainly dont have the energy or desire to spend time on this (and again, I mostly agree with him, so I'm certainly not motivated to prove him "wrong) but I think there's probably some statistics that he cherry picks to prove his points.

 
moleculo said:
The US military desegregated in 1948 under Harry Truman, almost 20 years before the Civil Rights Act.   Was that a social experiment from the left?
Click to expand...
Actually  it was desegregated  then Woodrow Wilson  resegregated in line with his progressive eugenic politics.

 
quick-hands said:
Actually  it was desegregated  then Woodrow Wilson  resegregated in line with his progressive eugenic politics.
Click to expand...
This is half right. It was partly desegregated, and still really awful, and then Woody shut the door even on half measures. Our most racist President ever. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Montana Man Confronts Tucker Carlson - Thoughts?
2 3 4
Replies
186
Views
6K
The General
The General
GordonGekko
Votes Over "Inclusion" - Transgender Women Must Register For US Selective Service (Draft), But Not Transgender Men (10/11/22 18:47 PST)
Replies
4
Views
438
FairWarning
FairWarning
L
McCarthy and McConnell Wanted ‘Son of a B*tch’ Trump Out of Politics After Jan. 6 Riot,
2 3
Replies
124
Views
3K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top