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)

ekbeats said:
So you are calling me a racist?  Do I have that correct?  Boy you really are a piece of work.  First off, I have no idea who FAIR is.  I did a quick Google on remittances hurting the US economy and it was at the top of what came up.  I didn’t include a link because I didn’t see anything in there that was worthy of a citation.
Click to expand...
No I specifically are NOT calling you a racist. Please read my post again. I believe you have no racial animus. I think you are using a racist source however, which is unfortunate. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't want you to miss the point, though, that if what I wrote above is wrong, that's good for the U.S., not bad.

When Jose tells Wal-Mart, "I'll do an hour's worth of work for you in return for some lemonade," that seems like a fair trade. Now suppose they do the deal and Jose tells Wal-Mart, "Okay, I did the hour's worth of work, but you know what? I'm not really thirsty. You can keep the lemonade. Consider my work to be a freebie." That's an even better deal for Wal-Mart.

It's just as true when you substitute the United States in for Wal-Mart. From our perspective, Jose's labor is a benefit, and the lemonade we have to give him for it is the cost of getting that benefit. If Jose does some work in the U.S. and then gets his lemonade in Mexico, that's awesome for the U.S. (and terrible for Mexico)!!!

That's not what really happens because Jose in fact gives his lemonade-voucher to Jim, who cashes it in for U.S. lemonade.

But if economics were wrong and Jose were really able to make his dollars disappear to Mexico, never to be spent in the U.S., that would be to the advantage of the U.S. To worry about that happening is to put the lemonade transaction in the wrong column in our cost-benefit table.
Click to expand...
I see your point now, thanks. From my standpoint I’m thinking about it this way... when that worker doesn’t get lemonade, the people who make that lemonade have lower sales.  There is less work for the people who make the lemonade and it’s ingredients, and the government gets less income and sales taxes.  In short, the US economy expands when that money is used within the United States.  When it is shipped off to Mexico it helps expand the Mexican economy.  Implicit within all this is that if the Mexican doesn’t do the work a US worker will.  And as I’ve acknowledged earlier, that is a very big assumption - and the bigger that assumption is the less of a loss it is for the US.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't want you to miss the point, though, that if what I wrote above is wrong, that's good for the U.S., not bad.

When Jose tells Wal-Mart, "I'll do an hour's worth of work for you in return for some lemonade," that seems like a fair trade. Now suppose they do the deal and Jose tells Wal-Mart, "Okay, I did the hour's worth of work, but you know what? I'm not really thirsty. You can keep the lemonade. Consider my work to be a freebie." That's an even better deal for Wal-Mart.

It's just as true when you substitute the United States in for Wal-Mart. From our perspective, Jose's labor is a benefit, and the lemonade we have to give him for it is the cost of getting that benefit. If Jose does some work in the U.S. and then gets his lemonade in Mexico, that's awesome for the U.S. (and terrible for Mexico)!!!

That's not what really happens because Jose in fact gives his lemonade-voucher to Jim, who cashes it in for U.S. lemonade.

But if economics were wrong and Jose were really able to make his dollars disappear to Mexico, never to be spent in the U.S., that would be to the advantage of the U.S. To worry about that happening is to put the lemonade transaction in the wrong column in our cost-benefit table.
Click to expand...
I sometimes think I understand things, like math...and then I learn something new.

So when I go to the UK and blow $50k of my earnings on fish and chips...that’s good fir the US economy?  Why does the currency I transact in change the equation?

 
timschochet said:
No I specifically are NOT calling you a racist. Please read my post again. I believe you have no racial animus. I think you are using a racist source however, which is unfortunate. 
Click to expand...
You inferred (incorrectly), and stated it publicly, that I intentionally didn’t cite a link because I knew it was a racist website.

 
djmich said:
So when I go to the UK and blow $50k of my earnings on fish and chips...that’s good fir the US economy?  Why does the currency I transact in change the equation?
Click to expand...
You typically can't blow $50K in the UK without exchanging your dollars into pounds first. If you could, that would be good for the U.S. economy.

But what usually happens instead is that you trade your dollars in for pounds, and whoever you trade them to will spend them in the U.S.

That's not good for the U.S. economy (on the contrary, it consumes U.S. resources), but people who think "Jose spending his dollars in Mexico is bad for the U.S." should, by that same reasoning, believe that it's good for the U.S. economy.

 
ekbeats said:
From my standpoint I’m thinking about it this way... when that worker doesn’t get lemonade, the people who make that lemonade have lower sales.
Click to expand...
Right, but the lemonade sellers in the U.S. aren't competing with lemonade sellers in Mexico; they're competing with wheat growers in Detroit (or is it car manufacturers in Iowa?). Let me find the link explaining this...

Here you go: http://walkerd.people.cofc.edu/Readings/Trade/iowacarcrop.pdf

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
From my standpoint I’m thinking about it this way... when that worker doesn’t get lemonade, the people who make that lemonade have lower sales.
Click to expand...
Actually, forget the Iowa Car Crop for now. For this particular argument, the candlestick-makers' protest against the sun is more apt.

Jose offering his services to the U.S. for free instead of insisting on a glass of lemonade in return does reduce the sales of American sellers of lemonade. In the same way, the sun offering its light for free does reduce the sales of American candlestick makers.

That is not a good reason for thinking that free sunlight is bad.

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

 
@Maurile Tremblay, what about dollars that are used to buy barrels of oil produced in Saudi Arabia and denominated in dollars? Then the Saudis leave those $ in their sovereign wealth fund? How does that help the US economy?

 
Sinn Fein said:
How are you defining "merit"?

I suspect that a true "merit" based approach, as considered by most conservatives, would actually be counter-intuitive.  Under such approach, immigrants would be coming in and taking high paying jobs from citizens - pushing many citizens down the corporate ladder )or off completely).

For centuries, the most "valuable" immigrants have been those who are willing to start at the bottom and work their way up.  They  take on jobs that most citizens don't want, or won't do.  The trade off for those immigrants is really the fact that their families, and future generations, are in a better position for success. These immigrants - from around the world - have been largely responsible for the growth of the nation - literally and figuratively.  They built cities, they built infrastructure connecting the cities, they delivered the food, etc. 

It also strike me as interesting that conservatives will be in favor of shipping jobs overseas - because it produces greater corporate profits - but are opposed to more entry level immigrants, which leads to greater corporate profits (for big and small businesses).
Click to expand...
Something similar to the Canadian or Australian systems.  I'm not against lower skilled workers either, we definitely need them.  We just can't take unlimited amounts.

 
The Z Machine said:
@Maurile Tremblay, what about dollars that are used to buy barrels of oil produced in Saudi Arabia and denominated in dollars? Then the Saudis leave those $ in their sovereign wealth fund? How does that help the US economy?
Click to expand...
What is a sovereign wealth fund? Is it like a mattress? Or is it an investment vehicle?

A generally good way to analyze things is to ignore little green pieces of paper, and to focus on everything else going on. If I earn $5 digging a hole and use it to buy $5 worth of cigarettes, just consider it a trade of labor for cigarettes. The intervening pieces of paper are a distraction.

So when Jose does work for Americans, that's a benefit for Americans. When he demands lemonade from Americans, that's a cost to Americans.

When we trade green pieces of paper for oil, that in and of itself, if there are no corresponding transactions that go with it, is like getting free oil. Of course, there are corresponding transactions. The Saudis will use the dollars for stuff -- sometimes for investment, but always ultimately for consumption -- in the U.S. At some point, unfortunately, we'll have to provide them with lemonade or whatever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
When we trade green pieces of paper for oil, that in and of itself, if there are no corresponding transactions that go with it, is like getting free oil. Of course, there are corresponding transactions. The Saudis will use the dollars for stuff -- sometimes for investment, but always ultimately for consumption -- in the U.S. At some point, unfortunately, we'll have to provide them with lemonade or whatever.
Click to expand...
The rub is that the Saudis and Chinese aren't exchanging those $ for goods or services right now.

The benefit for being the world's reserve currency are massive, until you aren't the world's reserve currency. 

 
timschochet said:
Fair enough. Perhaps I overstated it. Let me amend by saying that if Republican politicians were to argue for increasing immigration in general, and taking in much more refugees, I’d be more impressed by the claim that all they want to do is stop illegal immigration. 
But again, this is the opposite of the facts: your point of view is not what we are hearing. The Republican politicians most vocal about illegal immigration attack ALL immigration. Those who push “merit based immigration” do so not as addition but as an alternative, and it all too often becomes code for “more white people, less brown” which brings us back to the white supremacism that Carlson and many others in the Trump era are pushing for.  
Click to expand...
I can't speak for everyone with this view but I feel this is a pretty unfair characterization of the position as a whole.  There may be some fringe politician who is in the camp you describe, but most people who support merit based immigration are not doing so to subversively hide racial motives.  It's almost to have an honest thought or position today we first have to racially justify it.  It's gotten out of hand.  Anyway, you mentioned refugees specifically.  We already take a lot, we always have.  We cannot take unlimited numbers, but to me that number is a separate discussion and is a much smaller piece of the overall pie.  I believe family based immigration is the lion's share of legal immigration.  I simply don't understand why we would choose people based on family or a lottery as opposed to merit.  

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
What is a sovereign wealth fund? Is it like a mattress? Or is it an investment vehicle?

A generally good way to analyze things is to ignore little green pieces of paper, and to focus on everything else going on. If I earn $5 digging a hole and use it to buy $5 worth of cigarettes, just consider it a trade of labor for cigarettes. The intervening pieces of paper are a distraction.

So when Jose does work for Americans, that's a benefit for Americans. When he demands lemonade from Americans, that's a cost to Americans.

When we trade green pieces of paper for oil, that in and of itself, if there are no corresponding transactions that go with it, is like getting free oil. Of course, there are corresponding transactions. The Saudis will use the dollars for stuff -- sometimes for investment, but always ultimately for consumption -- in the U.S. At some point, unfortunately, we'll have to provide them with lemonade or whatever.
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused on this.  Wasn't the whole trade war with China because of the trade deficit.  The US spends more on China goods then China spends on US goods.  

You seem to be saying that it is better to have a trade deficit?  Or maybe I am interpreting you incorrectly.

 
Chaz McNulty said:
I'm a little confused on this.  Wasn't the whole trade war with China because of the trade deficit.  The US spends more on China goods then China spends on US goods.  

You seem to be saying that it is better to have a trade deficit?  Or maybe I am interpreting you incorrectly.
Click to expand...
You can read me as saying that the whole trade war with China, based on ideas about a perceived trade deficit, was extremely dumb (and overwhelmingly opposed by economists).

 
According to this list....anyone here claim to NOT to participate in racism?

  1. Classical music
  2. Facial recognition technology
  3. ‘Jingle Bells’
  4. The White House
  5. Peanut butter and jelly
  6. The Washington and Jefferson memorials
  7. ‘Happy Xmas, War Is Over’
  8. The expression “sold down the river“
  9. The expression “long time no see“
  10. The Declaration of Independence
  11. ‘The Christmas Song’
  12. Star Wars/Darth Vader
  13. Peanut galleries
  14. Indian sports mascots 
  15. Voter ID Laws
  16. “God Bless America“
  17. The National Anthem
  18. Police officers
  19. Ketchup
  20. The legal system
  21. Disney’s Dumbo 
  22. The English language
  23. Republicans
  24. Chopsticks
  25. The Gadsden Flag
  26. Animal House
  27. Opposition to illegal immigration
  28. Zoning laws
  29. All white men
  30. Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
  31. Standardized testing
  32. Gucci
  33. Prada
  34. Buildings named after white men
  35. Conservatives
  36. City bicycle rentals
  37. Dress codes
  38. Self-driving cars
  39. The United States of America
  40. Kellogg’s Corn Pops
  41. Mathematics
  42. The U.S. Constitution
  43. Aunt Jemima products
  44. Any television shows or movies without a ‘major’ non-white character
  45. Fast food
  46. Commercial advertisements featuring fatherless black families
  47. Steve Martin’s iconic ‘King Tut’ SNL sketch
  48. Pornography
  49. Peter Pan
  50. The Jungle Book
  51. Dr. Seuss books
  52. Liquor stores in majority minority neighborhoods
  53. The American Flag
  54. Betsy Ross’s Flag
  55. Tipping
  56. The expression ‘no can do’
  57. The Food Pyramid
  58. Some pet dogs
  59. Most medical physicians
  60. Rideshare
  61. Grandfather clauses
  62. TBD
  63. TBD
  64. TBD
  65. To be continued…
I am baffled why the word "Democrat" is not on this list.
After all...this word is associated with everything and anything associated with slavery in the US.
Geez....they even went to WAR to keep it.

The word is associated to those directly responsible for the most American war deaths in history....and all to preserve and advance slavery.

Why is this word not considered as "racist" and who would possibly want to even be associated with it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ekbeats said:
Chelsea Clinton calls on Tucker to be banned from Facebook.  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/04/15/chelsea-clinton-wants-tucker-carlson-banned-from-facebook-n2588005
Click to expand...
And by Friday, I'm getting email from the GOP claiming it needs donations to fight Chelsea Clinton's "clear violation" of the First Amendment. No explanation of how a private citizen asking a private company to do something has anything to do with the First Amendment, but I'm sure some will send them money. Nice to know the GOP learned something from Donald Trump.

 
apalmer said:
And by Friday, I'm getting email from the GOP claiming it needs donations to fight Chelsea Clinton's "clear violation" of the First Amendment. No explanation of how a private citizen asking a private company to do something has anything to do with the First Amendment, but I'm sure some will send them money. Nice to know the GOP learned something from Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
But it's the leftists that are outraged and triggered...

 
I think Tucker is having a conversation that a lot of Americans are having.  

The CDC/Fauci HAS flipped their script multiple times.  And science absolutely evolves and we learn things we thought were wrong.  

But people question the science and the face of the science since they have changed positions on things.  Before it was if you're asymptomatic you probably can't spread disease.  If you come into contact with a positive person and you've been vaccinated--you don't need to quarantine.  Now you can maybe still spread covid if you've been vaccinated.  People question that.  And that's ok to question things.  

Tucker is having that conversation.  And I think people in the media need to.  I think people should address his points either on the show or another platform if not on his show.  But the concerns of people need to be addressed.  

I'm a physician, I've worked the covid unit at our hospital for the past year.  It's my goal in life that everyone get vaccinated and this thing ends.  I don't think "don't question the vaccine" is a plausible path.  These conversations have to/need to happen.

BUT TUCKER ASKED IF THE VACCINE DOESN'T WORK.  Sure.  That's what people are wondering.  Why the hell am I wearing a mask if this vaccine does work.  I think the CDC has caused chaos with this.  I think the real/better answer is there's no way to police who does and doesn't have to wear a mask at the grocery store.  

But to suggest Tucker Carlson is keeping you from getting the vaccine.  If Tucker Carlson's words prevent you from getting the vaccine--you already weren't taking it.  These are going to be people that already had a ton of doubt in the vaccine and the system.  If Tucker told them they were wrong and the vaccine was 100% fine, they would still have their doubts.  

Questioning the vaccine should drive conversation about these things.  

 
apalmer said:
And by Friday, I'm getting email from the GOP claiming it needs donations to fight Chelsea Clinton's "clear violation" of the First Amendment. No explanation of how a private citizen asking a private company to do something has anything to do with the First Amendment, but I'm sure some will send them money. Nice to know the GOP learned something from Donald Trump.
Click to expand...


If you don't make a donation we'll have to tell President Trump you are a traitor.

 
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...
Title says "Deep Trouble"   Is Tucker still in deep trouble or has that passed?

 
The Dude said:
Tucker caters to all levels of prejudice.  If you watch his show regularly, you may want to take a hard look in the mirror
Click to expand...
If you saw the piece John Oliver did, white supremists praise his show. He relays their message in a subtle way and they love it. The one guy said they watch his show twice - once for the entertainment then again to take notes. 

 
Amused to Death said:
The Dude said:
Tucker caters to all levels of prejudice.  If you watch his show regularly, you may want to take a hard look in the mirror
Click to expand...
If you saw the piece John Oliver did, white supremists praise his show. He relays their message in a subtle way and they love it. The one guy said they watch his show twice - once for the entertainment then again to take notes. 
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Tucker is a white supremacist and his viewers are white supremacist. Also the network broadcasting Tucker is a white supremacist network. If you watch that network you're a white supremacist. If you get your cable from a company that offers that white supremacist network, you're a white supremacist. 

Also if you posted in this thread (or even clicked on it - I see you killface) then you're a white supremacist.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
:goodposting:

Tucker is a white supremacist and his viewers are white supremacist. Also the network broadcasting Tucker is a white supremacist network. If you watch that network you're a white supremacist. If you get your cable from a company that offers that white supremacist network, you're a white supremacist. 

Also if you posted in this thread (or even clicked on it - I see you killface) then you're a white supremacist.
Click to expand...
I didn't say any of that, but a former white supremacist said what I posted. Not my words.

:shrug:

My office blocks youtube or I'd post it. Not that I think you'd watch. If you are interested, search for John Oliver Tucker Carlson. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Sorry but it's clear you've watched his show.   :shrug: Not my rules. I'd explain it to you further but you have an urgent meeting with your mirror.
Click to expand...
I don't understand your meaning. Yes, I've watched Tucker Carlson before hyper partisanship took over. I also used to watch Hannity and other Fox shows going back to Bill O'Reilly. I also watch John Oliver and Bill Maher. I don't live in a bubble.

And I don't appreciate the snarky insult. I don't take personal shots and appreciate the same respect. TIA.

 
The Dude said:
Tucker caters to all levels of prejudice.  If you watch his show regularly, you may want to take a hard look in the mirror
Click to expand...
Spoken like someone who doesn't watch Tucker Carlson.  If you did, you'd see that his entire worldview is just the opposite.  He rails against judging people on their immutable characteristics.  He says it all the time.  He spends most of his time railing against reverse discrimination, which I will admit gets a little tiresome, but I can say with certainty that his message is consistently clear that people should not be judged by their skin color but based on their character.  

 
Mookie said:
That was a little disturbing.  Dude is wound a little bit too tight.
Click to expand...
What i can't stand about guys like Trump and Carlson (and there other many things) is this tough guy image they try to maintain when it is so clear they are the farthest thing from a tough guy.  Both of them would cry themselves into a corner in any threatening situation

 
Amused to Death said:
If you saw the piece John Oliver did, white supremists praise his show. He relays their message in a subtle way and they love it. The one guy said they watch his show twice - once for the entertainment then again to take notes. 
Click to expand...
For anyone who hasn't seen it or wants to watch again, here's where Derek Black talks about his father (founder of Stormfront) watching Tucker for notes.

ETA: NSFW language

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
:goodposting:

Tucker is a white supremacist and his viewers are white supremacist. Also the network broadcasting Tucker is a white supremacist network. If you watch that network you're a white supremacist. If you get your cable from a company that offers that white supremacist network, you're a white supremacist. 

Also if you posted in this thread (or even clicked on it - I see you killface) then you're a white supremacist.
Click to expand...
i'd agree with just the bolded.  rest is drivel.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
:goodposting:

Tucker is a white supremacist and his viewers are white supremacist. Also the network broadcasting Tucker is a white supremacist network. If you watch that network you're a white supremacist. If you get your cable from a company that offers that white supremacist network, you're a white supremacist. 

Also if you posted in this thread (or even clicked on it - I see you killface) then you're a white supremacist.
Click to expand...
Easier to dismiss a point than dispute it when you don’t have your own point

its kind of your thing

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
435
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