Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Tucker Carlson: probably not in deep trouble anymore, but he should be.


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

You just described Ben Shaprio only with the politics flipped around.  

I don't watch him either.

You clearly don't watch Oliver, because I don't see him as comparable to Shapiro. Oliver is funny in his delivery and seems to have a legitimately good team of writers and researchers. 

Shapiro seems like a characture of what somebody with no background in political theory would think a political theorist is supposed to sound like. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Most Southern racists were Democrats before 1964 and the Civil Rights Act. Then they switched parties. 

Yeah okay.  then maybe you can give me a list of everybody that switched parties.

I'll wait.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah okay.  then maybe you can give me a list of everybody that switched parties.

I'll wait.

Starting with Strom Thurmond, virtually the entire Deep South went from Democrat to Republican: 

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/25/417154906/dixies-long-journey-from-democratic-stronghold-to-republican-redoubt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zow said:

You clearly don't watch Oliver, because I don't see him as comparable to Shapiro.

Just to be clear, so there's no misunderstanding, I don't watch either one of these people.  I'm just going off the descriptions provided to me.  When somebody says that Oliver "brutalizes" right-wingers, that sounds very Ben Shapiro like, only I guess with Shapiro it would be all-caps BRUTALIZES just to really convey how totally brutal his brutalizing is.  But that's not really much of a difference IMO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Just to be clear, so there's no misunderstanding, I don't watch either one of these people.  I'm just going off the descriptions provided to me.  When somebody says that Oliver "brutalizes" right-wingers, that sounds very Ben Shapiro like, only I guess with Shapiro it would be all-caps BRUTALIZES just to really convey how totally brutal his brutalizing is.  But that's not really much of a difference IMO.  

then i don't really understand your comments

Edited by joffer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Just to be clear, so there's no misunderstanding, I don't watch either one of these people.  I'm just going off the descriptions provided to me.  When somebody says that Oliver "brutalizes" right-wingers, that sounds very Ben Shapiro like, only I guess with Shapiro it would be all-caps BRUTALIZES just to really convey how totally brutal his brutalizing is.  But that's not really much of a difference IMO.  

When right wing folks talk about brutalizing someone in a debate it’s different from when left wing folks do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bummer to dismiss Oliver. He has spent a ton of time taking progressive positions, for sure, he's no centrist.

But he has shown a light that was needed on some nasty stuff that is important for anyone to see. 

SLAPP lawsuits

Net Neutrality

 Dietary Supplements

 Payday Loans

Drones

 Patent Trolls

 Child Labor 

On and on. I've learned more from Oliver than any show that wasn't narrated by an Attenborough.

Dig around his YouTube channel. Avoid the political stuff, and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind Tucker :shrug:

He covers topics many others don't and allows his guests to speak most of the time without always cutting them off. I don't think I've ever seen an entire episode of his but will check in sometimes to see what he is covering. That's more time than I give any of the others. Can't take Hannity for more than 10 seconds. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jamny said:

I don't mind Tucker :shrug:

He covers topics many others don't and allows his guests to speak most of the time without always cutting them off. I don't think I've ever seen an entire episode of his but will check in sometimes to see what he is covering. That's more time than I give any of the others. Can't take Hannity for more than 10 seconds. 

Pandas are aggresive and sex crazed

Zombie raccoons

 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, -jb- said:

Again, give me names of people who switched parties.  Like, literally people who declared they were switching.  That article is just another, "Oh yeah, everything switched again when we found out we were on the wrong side of history.  Yeah, that's the ticket."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, timschochet said:

Starting with Strom Thurmond, virtually the entire Deep South went from Democrat to Republican: 

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/25/417154906/dixies-long-journey-from-democratic-stronghold-to-republican-redoubt

Again, give me names of people who switched parties.  Like, literally people who declared they were switching.  That article is just another, "Oh yeah, everything switched again when we found out we were on the wrong side of history.  Yeah, that's the ticket."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jamny said:

I don't mind Tucker :shrug:

He covers topics many others don't and allows his guests to speak most of the time without always cutting them off. I don't think I've ever seen an entire episode of his but will check in sometimes to see what he is covering. That's more time than I give any of the others. Can't take Hannity for more than 10 seconds. 

He has some viewpoints that don't always mesh well with Republican positions.  He's been pretty anti-war, also he invited Bill DeBlasio on once to talk about automation and how it's damaging the lower end wage earners.  For sure he takes a condescending tone on his show sometimes but that's pretty standard in today's opinion based shows.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

John Oliver is a comedian on HBO, Tucker Carlson is prime time on Fox “news”. The fact that we are holding  them to the same standard is ridiculous. 

Jon Stewart to Tucker Carlson in 2004:

"You're on CNN. The show that leads into mine is puppets making crank phone calls."

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, massraider said:

Jon Stewart to Tucker Carlson in 2004:

"You're on CNN. The show that leads into mine is puppets making crank phone calls."

 

Yeah, I started to talk about that interview where he says basically the same thing but deleted that part. The fact that people would watch the daily show to find out what’s happening in the news just shows what a terrible job the mainstream media has done. Stewart was right then. The shout shows have proliferated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

John Oliver is a comedian on HBO, Tucker Carlson is prime time on Fox “news”. The fact that we are holding  them to the same standard is ridiculous. 

You guys are the ones holding them to the same standard.  I'm not.  Oliver is a comedian - he'll do or say anything for a laugh and that means cherry-picking and outright fabrications.

Carlson has a lot more credibility than that moron.  Oliver hasn't met a far left cause he doesn't like.  Dude is like every other celebrity in Hollywood - a die hard lefty who will do or say anything for the cause.  Propaganda at its finest.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

You guys are the ones holding them to the same standard.  I'm not.  Oliver is a comedian - he'll do or say anything for a laugh and that means cherry-picking and outright fabrications.

Carlson has a lot more credibility than that moron.

I'm not holding them to the same standard.  I hold Oliver to a higher standard.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickies said:

I'm not holding them to the same standard.  I hold Oliver to a higher standard.

Let's be clear here: if Oliver was spouting GOP talking points all day long you wouldn't be saying this.  This is naked partisanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Again, give me names of people who switched parties.  Like, literally people who declared they were switching.  That article is just another, "Oh yeah, everything switched again when we found out we were on the wrong side of history.  Yeah, that's the ticket."

Like, a list of voters from 1963?  Can we agree that the vast majority of voters in the south used to vote democrat and now republican, or is that up for debate somehow?

Edited by -jb-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Let's be clear here: if Oliver was spouting GOP talking points all day long you wouldn't be saying this.  This is naked partisanship.

I think it's fairly clear you haven't seen too much of John Oliver. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

You guys are the ones holding them to the same standard.  I'm not.  Oliver is a comedian - he'll do or say anything for a laugh and that means cherry-picking and outright fabrications.

Carlson has a lot more credibility than that moron.  Oliver hasn't met a far left cause he doesn't like.  Dude is like every other celebrity in Hollywood - a die hard lefty who will do or say anything for the cause.  Propaganda at its finest.

Carlson has no credibility.

 

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Let's be clear here: if Oliver was spouting GOP talking points all day long you wouldn't be saying this.  This is naked partisanship.

If he was spewing right wing talking points his jokes would probably suck. Right wing satire is awful. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, timschochet said:

Starting with Strom Thurmond, virtually the entire Deep South went from Democrat to Republican: 

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/25/417154906/dixies-long-journey-from-democratic-stronghold-to-republican-redoubt

There were a lot of deep southern D's when Wallace ran for president in '72.  I remember it was a pretty big deal when he won Michigan, then was shot in Maryland soon after in a assassination attempt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

There were a lot of deep southern D's when Wallace ran for president in '72.  I remember it was a pretty big deal when he won Michigan, then was shot in Maryland soon after in a assassination attempt.  

Our family knew one of the troopers assigned to his detail right before his death.  Apparently he was a nasty man to everyone.  The guy didn't have one nice word to say about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

You guys are the ones holding them to the same standard.  I'm not.  Oliver is a comedian - he'll do or say anything for a laugh and that means cherry-picking and outright fabrications.

Carlson has a lot more credibility than that moron.  Oliver hasn't met a far left cause he doesn't like.  Dude is like every other celebrity in Hollywood - a die hard lefty who will do or say anything for the cause.  Propaganda at its finest.

The fact you don’t think Tucker is pure propaganda as well is telling and exposes your bias. His motivation is no different than Oliver’s. Ratings and feeding their respective bases their red meat.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Just to be clear, so there's no misunderstanding, I don't watch either one of these people.  I'm just going off the descriptions provided to me.  When somebody says that Oliver "brutalizes" right-wingers, that sounds very Ben Shapiro like, only I guess with Shapiro it would be all-caps BRUTALIZES just to really convey how totally brutal his brutalizing is.  But that's not really much of a difference IMO.  

IK:  Give this segment a watch:

John Oliver - Municipal Violations

It’s not the sexiest of topics, but I think this is a really excellent example of editorial journalism.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Again, give me names of people who switched parties.  Like, literally people who declared they were switching.  That article is just another, "Oh yeah, everything switched again when we found out we were on the wrong side of history.  Yeah, that's the ticket."

Some of them were named Jimbo. Others were named Hank. Still others were named Jesse or Lisa or Pam.

How many more names do you want? Because we could be here a while...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Some of them were named Jimbo. Others were named Hank. Still others were named Jesse or Lisa or Pam.

How many more names do you want? Because we could be here a while...

I can buy into Hank, Jesse, Lisa, maybe Pam...

But Jimbo switched parties? I’m not buying it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Some of them were named Jimbo. Others were named Hank. Still others were named Jesse or Lisa or Pam.

How many more names do you want? Because we could be here a while...

I want them all.

And real, actual people.  I'll wait.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I want them all.

And real, actual people.  I'll wait.

Anybody who posts the names of tens of millions of voters whose ballots are supposed to be kept secret would get a timeout, including me. (Can you imagine the scrolling? It'd be longer than a Gordon Gekko post.)

But the phenomenon itself is not a secret, nor is it controversial. See the Wikipedia link above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I want them all.

And real, actual people.  I'll wait.

Did you read MT's link about the southern strategy? This whole conversation is so odd. It is a very well known thing what happened to the racists of the south

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Anybody who posts the names of tens of millions of voters whose ballots are supposed to be kept secret would get a timeout, including me. (Can you imagine the scrolling? It'd be longer than a Gordon Hello post.)

But the phenomenon itself is not a secret, nor is it controversial. See the Wikipedia link above.

Isn’t it also illegal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Anybody who posts the names of tens of millions of voters whose ballots are supposed to be kept secret would get a timeout, including me. (Can you imagine the scrolling? It'd be longer than a Gordon Gekko post.)

But the phenomenon itself is not a secret, nor is it controversial. See the Wikipedia link above.

The real controversy is that every time the Democrats have been on the wrong side of history they come up with the "We switched parties" excuse.  Not buying it but the con worked well enough that now 95% of the very same people they were racist against now vote for them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

The real controversy is that every time the Democrats have been on the wrong side of history they come up with the "We switched parties" excuse.  Not buying it but the con worked well enough that now 95% of the very same people they were racist against now vote for them.

The Democrats were definitely the party of racism during Reconstruction and Jim Crow.

In the sixties and seventies, southern conservative whites generally switched parties from Democrat to Republican (while southern liberals and non-whites went in the opposite direction).

I don't think that generalization is in real dispute.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

The real controversy is that every time the Democrats have been on the wrong side of history they come up with the "We switched parties" excuse.  Not buying it but the con worked well enough that now 95% of the very same people they were racist against now vote for them.

I definitely think the "we switched" argument in many instances is lazy, but I also think that most of the time democrats did "xyz" back in 270BC is pretty lazy too. 

Often times hyperbole is also lazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

The real controversy is that every time the Democrats have been on the wrong side of history they come up with the "We switched parties" excuse.  Not buying it but the con worked well enough that now 95% of the very same people they were racist against now vote for them.

So how do you account for the south flipping from being a democrat stronghold to it becoming a republican one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, the moops said:

So how do you account for the south flipping from being a democrat stronghold to it becoming a republican one?

Listen, names of people who switched parties or it didn't happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

The real controversy is that every time the Democrats have been on the wrong side of history they come up with the "We switched parties" excuse.  Not buying it but the con worked well enough that now 95% of the very same people they were racist against now vote for them.

White southern racists switching from Democrat to Republican isn't even controversial.  The fact that you're disputing it is bizarre.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zoonation said:

Listen, names of people who switched parties or it didn't happen.

Strom thurmond. 
 

Running for President as a Dixiecrat in 1948, Strom Thurmond declared that "all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches and our places of recreation." By 1964, with civil rights marching onward, it was clear that his fellow Democrats disagreed. Thurmond jumped ship, joining the Republican Party that year. The first major Southern pol to cross the aisle during the civil rights era, the South Carolina Senator marked the beginning of the GOP's appeal to white, Southern conservatives, and helped turn a former blue state red.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading through strom Thurmond quotes is like reading Trump speeches.

On his contributions to minorities:

"I have done more for black people than any other person in the nation, North or South”

“I am not prejudiced against the Negro. When I was governor, I did more to help the Negroes in our State than any previous Governor, and I think you can find Negro leaders in the State who will attest to this fact”

Deep state:

"It is a matter of common knowledge that the government of South Carolina is under domination of a small ring of cunning, conniving men."

 

Well then there’s this one, but in fairness there is no context to what he’s referring to:

“She walks well, she looks good. Let's see how she kisses."

*he was crowning a 19 year old miss South Carolina, and planted one on her 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dickies said:
9 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

The real controversy is that every time the Democrats have been on the wrong side of history they come up with the "We switched parties" excuse.  Not buying it but the con worked well enough that now 95% of the very same people they were racist against now vote for them.

White southern racists switching from Democrat to Republican isn't even controversial.  The fact that you're disputing it is bizarre.  

I wonder how the disputers explain the massive flip in voter affiliation in the '60s? Do they think all the racist Democrats got raptured or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The Democrats were definitely the party of racism during Reconstruction and Jim Crow.

In the sixties and seventies, southern conservative whites generally switched parties from Democrat to Republican (while southern liberals and non-whites went in the opposite direction).

I don't think that generalization is in real dispute.


This has been the new conservative talking point for the last year or so. It seems like the most prominent Southern Strategy truther is Dinesh D’Souza. He gets into twitter wars with history professors all the time where they show the folly of his arguments. 
 

You probably know all this already. 

Edited by whoknew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whoknew said:


This has been the new conservative talking point for the last year or so. It seems like the most prominent Southern Strategy truther is Dinesh D’Souza. He gets into twitter wars with history professors all the time where they show the folly of his arguments. 
 

You probably know all this already. 

I can't say that I'm familiar with D'Souza's Twitter feed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • timschochet changed the title to Tucker Carlson: probably not in deep trouble anymore, but he should be.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...