Jump to content

Tucker Carlson


AUDub

Recommended Posts

Hoo, boy.

Tucker Carlson unapologetic over ‘misogynistic’ comments on statutory rape, insults against women

Quote

Carlson was widely criticized on Sunday following a report from the nonprofit Media Matters for America that compiled and transcribed more than a dozen instances of the host appearing on the “Bubba the Love Sponge Show,” a popular radio program broadcast from Tampa. In the segments, Carlson suggested underage marriage is not as serious as forcible child rape, called rape shield laws “totally unfair” and once said he would “love” a scenario involving young girls sexually experimenting. He also described women as “extremely primitive,” and used words such as “pig” and the c-word.

 

Quote

In September 2006, just months after Jeffs had been added to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, Carlson slammed the criminal charges, calling them “bullsh--.”

“Now this guy may be . . ., may be a child rapist,” Carlson said. “I’m just telling you that arranging a marriage between a 16-year-old and a 27-year-old is not the same as pulling a stranger off the street and raping her.”

Three years later in another segment on the radio show, Carlson clarified that he was not defending underage marriage but added, “I just don’t think it’s the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child.”

Both Bubba the Love Sponge and his co-host immediately pushed back.

“Yeah, it’s — you know what it is? It’s much more planned out and plotted,” said the co-host, who wasn’t identified in the transcripts.

Bubba the Love Sponge chimed in, saying the act should almost be described as premeditated, but Carlson wasn’t swayed.

“The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different,” he said.

“That’s twisted,” the co-host replied, later calling Carlson’s comment “demented.”

In that same show, Carlson continued to argue on behalf of Jeffs, saying he was in prison “because he’s weird and unpopular and he has a different lifestyle that other people find creepy.”

At the time, as the show’s co-host noted, Jeffs had already been convicted of being an accomplice to rape for his role in arranging a marriage between a 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old cousin.

“What do you mean an accessory?” Carlson asked when Jeffs’s conviction was brought up. “He’s like got some weird religious cult where he thinks it’s okay to, you know, marry underaged girls, but he didn’t do it. Why wouldn’t the guy who actually did it, who had sex with an underaged girl, he should be the one who’s doing life.”

 

Quote

Carlson went on to say that if he had made the laws, “Michael Vick would have been executed, and Warren Jeffs would be out on the street.” Vick, a former NFL quarterback, was sentenced to 23 months in 2007 for dogfighting.

“I’m not for child rape,” he said. “I’m just saying, if you mistreat dogs like that, we’re going to have to execute you.”

In other segments, Carlson called for the elimination of rape shield laws, which are intended to protect the identities and histories of victims of sex crimes and engaged in a conversation about young girls and their sexual behavior.

On the laws, he said in May 2006: “So if I’m alleging rape, I have the protection of anonymity. I can say whatever I want while hiding behind anonymity, while the person I accused, whether he’s guilty or not, has his life destroyed. That’s totally unfair.”

Then, in an October 2009 show, Bubba the Love Sponge launched into what appeared to be a hypothetical description of the young girls at the boarding school attended by Carlson’s daughter experimenting with each other sexually.

“I ain’t got my mom and dad here telling me that they love me and tuck me in bed,” the radio host said. “So, here’s Trixie, she wants to explore my body a little bit, so hey, let’s go crazy.”

Carlson responded: “If it weren’t my daughter, I would love that scenario.”

Over the years on the show, Carlson also repeatedly spoke about women using language that many found to be offensive. He once said, “I love women, but they’re extremely primitive, they’re basic, they’re not that hard to understand.” In another appearance, he implied that women like being instructed by men to “just be quiet and kind of do what you’re told.”

And this guy has daughters. WTF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





58 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Tucker Carlson speaks: D1V8W-EWwAArYCJ.jpg:large

That's...not much of a defense. Naughty? 

Saying women are "primitive," defending the rape of a child and fantasizing about adolescents having sex is "naughty?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally like French, but there are times he's a disingenuous dillweed. 

Let's see what he was saying a month ago, shall we? 

All that matters is defending whoever the libs are mad at. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Who cares?

Nice hasty generalization, but apparently you do, or you wouldn’t be here commenting. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the point of all this? To take Tucker out? His show was already being boycotted for those that keep up with that sort of thing.

Tucker was actually employed by MSNBC during that time he was on Bubba the Love Sponge. He was at MSNBC until March 2008 when his show got cancelled due to low ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

So what's the point of all this? To take Tucker out? His show was already being boycotted for those that keep up with that sort of thing.

Tucker was actually employed by MSNBC during that time he was on Bubba the Love Sponge. He was at MSNBC until March 2008 when his show got cancelled due to low ratings.

You guys choose the weirdest ******* hills to die on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AUDub said:

You guys choose the weirdest ******* hills to die on. 

I don't call for boycotts or the axe for show's I disagree with or comments from hosts I find repugnant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I don't call for boycotts or the axe for show's I disagree with or comments from hosts I find repugnant.

Do you think there’s a line? Can you entertain the idea that it may have been crossed here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Do you think there’s a line? Can you entertain the idea that it may have been crossed here?

Calling for violence against folks you don't like or disagree with yeah. That's a line that no one should cross or get excused for. Yet we've seen several contributors on CNN who either tweeted harassing comments calling the Covington students a** wipes(Ana Navarro) or said Nick Sandmann was a deplorable who can be punched in the face(Bakari Sellers)that are still getting paid to be on CNN. 

I actually said last year that I'd be ok with Joy Reid her keeping her job on MSNBC despite her issues. I thought she wasn't sincere about her apology and kept digging a hole by saying her blogs were hacked. But none the less it doesn't bother me than she kept her job.

I really don't like folks like Media Matters whose sole objective is one sided and who let Joy Reid off the hook but have launched an all out war against Carlson because he's a conservative voice.

Quote

Media Matters for America will not launch any advertiser boycott against Joy Reid. The non-profit watchdog group’s president Angelo Carusone told TheWrap on Wednesday his group will not target the MSNBC host after mounting pressure from those who have called out an old blog post of hers as being bigoted toward the LGBT community.

In a public Twitter conversation on Wednesday, Carusone answered a question from TheWrap, saying that Reid’s past post will not trigger a Twitter boycott from his group. He called the effort to draw attention to Media Matters on the topic of Reid “bulls–t” and “right wing chicanery.”

https://www.thewrap.com/media-matters-says-no-boycott-for-joy-reid-ad-pressure-campaigns-are-rare-for-us/

 

And here's an article I agree with from someone who doesn't like Carlson but doesn't like the style of the boycotts using corporations to decide which speech is acceptable:

Quote

But as much as the Carlson show pains me, the calls by activists for an advertiser boycott pain me more. As I wrote in 2017 when Fox’s Bill O’Reilly faced similar calls for an advertiser boycott, I’m made queasy by crusades that charge corporate advertisers with the power to decide what ideas should be discussed and how they should be discussed. Seriously, I barely trust IHOP to make my breakfast. Why would I expect it to vet my cable news content for me?

I’ve been watching TV news and reading newspapers and magazines for a lifetime. The notion that an advertisement should constitute an automatic endorsement of a program or news article comes as a novel argument to me. My understanding has always been that advertisers buy space because they want to attract the attention of the eyes and ears drawn in by news. If we’re going to interpret ads as forms of validation for content the ads are adjacent to, does that mean Staples and Comcast, both of which advertised in today’s Washington Post, endorse the Post’s news coverage and opinion columns, or that Bloomingdale’s and Johnson & Johnson approve of the editorial drift of the New York Times because they just took out full-page ads? Not in my media universe.

Ideally, journalists are independent of the companies that buy the advertisements adjacent to their copy. But then advertisers are independent, too—of the journalists whose pages and minutes they subsidize with ads. The boycotters don’t see that independence. An ad, for them, is an act of agreement with content. Without boarding the slippery slope, we can see the media wreckage that will follow such a viewpoint should it become ascendant. Advertisers tend to be timid, overreactive, running from controversy and conflict, and in times of perceived crisis, their timidity spreads to publishers, which is bad for journalism. It’s easy to imagine today’s boycotts turning into tomorrow’s blacklist. Students of the McCarthyite 1950s can tell you all you want to know about the hundreds of blacklisted performers and entertainers who were barred from work for years because of their political transgressions.

Both good journalism and bad journalism create controversy. But it’s always a mistake to stamp out controversy with a censor’s heel. Nate Silver put it better than I can in a Tuesday evening tweet: “The logical endpoint of deeming advertisers to have endorsed the political messages of the shows they run ads on is that only milquetoast both-sidesism with a pro-corporate bent will be advertising-supported, if any political content is ad-supported at all.” Silver’s view is informed by his memory of the time when conservative groups urged boycotts of advertisers and network thought to be promoting LGBTQ or other “nontraditional” lifestyles.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/19/stop-the-stupid-tucker-carlson-boycott-223387

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the content of his argument, in a way I agree. A person that forcefully and violently rapes a kid is worse than a sick manipulative bastard that marries one. Because usually he kills her. This doesn’t excuse or lessen the severity of the manipulator for me like it does Carlson. It’s just a way of ranking which order I would execute them both. If this interests you watch “Abducted In Plain Sight” on Netflix. It’s infuriatingly good.  

Same with Bill Cosby vs a person who forces a woman and injures her. They are both repulsive but on different levels. And one is more prone to kill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Calling for violence against folks you don't like or disagree with yeah. That's a line that no one should cross or get excused for. Yet we've seen several contributors on CNN who either tweeted harassing comments calling the Covington students a** wipes(Ana Navarro) or said Nick Sandmann was a deplorable who can be punched in the face(Bakari Sellers)that are still getting paid to be on CNN. 

For one, you won’t find me defending those people. Like, at all. s***, I even sent a contrite email to the diocese of those kids after I realized I’d been fooled by an effective bit of propaganda.

Hell, I have no idea who Navarro and Sellers even are. If CNN decided to sever ties should that not walk back their stupidity, I could get behind that 100%.

For another, are you saying calling women “primitive,” saying they “just need to be quiet and kind of do what you’re told,” defense of a guy who literally slept with children, advocacy for child marriage and literally fantasizing about the sex lives of kids does not cross that line? Are Tucker’s comments excusable to you?

Quote

I actually said last year that I'd be ok with Joy Reid her keeping her job on MSNBC despite her issues. I thought she wasn't sincere about her apology and kept digging a hole by saying her blogs were hacked. But none the less it doesn't bother me than she kept her job.

Had she not apologized, I’d be a hell of a lot less forgiving, same with Carlson, but therein lies a big difference between her and Tucker. He’s being defiant (COME ON MY SHOW AND DEBATE MY VIEWS!), she was contrite. Yeah, the hacking thing was bull**** and she should have been called out on that more forcefully, but there’s not really a 1:1 comparison here.

Quote

I really don't like folks like Media Matters whose sole objective is one sided and who let Joy Reid off the hook but have launched an all out war against Carlson because he's a conservative voice.

https://www.thewrap.com/media-matters-says-no-boycott-for-joy-reid-ad-pressure-campaigns-are-rare-for-us/

And whatever their motives, they have ammo. His comments/views were and are (he’s defended statutory rape as recently as 2 years ago) outrageous.

Quote

And here's an article I agree with from someone who doesn't like Carlson but doesn't like the style of the boycotts using corporations to decide which speech is acceptable:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/19/stop-the-stupid-tucker-carlson-boycott-223387

Both sides pull this, whether the right with people like the Dixie Chicks or the left with people like Rush and Carlson. 

And, honestly, I really have no problem with it. Putting pressure on advertisers is speech and “letting the market decide.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, alexava said:

Because usually he kills her.

Child rape rarely results in murder in the course of the crime. It’s every bit as much about control as it is about sexual gratification. The vast majority of child sexual abuse is committed but an individual the child knows and/or trusts. In the case of pedophiles, they’re so twisted they often believe their feelings for the child are reciprocated. 

In short, child sexual abuse like that common to the FLDS is more the norm than the exception.

I have a hard time seeing your point. Rape isn’t really a tiered crime with different levels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Child rape rarely results in murder in the course of the crime. It’s every bit as much about control as it is about sexual gratification. The vast majority of child sexual abuse is committed but an individual the child knows and/or trusts. In the case of pedophiles, they’re so twisted they often believe their feelings for the child are reciprocated. 

In short, child sexual abuse like that common to the FLDS is more the norm than the exception.

I have a hard time seeing your point. Rape isn’t really a tiered crime with different levels. 

The law sees rape and murder both as tiered crimes with different levels. My punishment for any rape especially children is death.. so my levels don’t really matter..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Hell, I have no idea who Navarro and Sellers even are. If CNN decided to sever ties should that not walk back their stupidity, I could get behind that 100%.

They both make daily or every other day appearances on CNN. I'm surprised you've never heard of them or seen them. You must not watch much CNN that much. Navarro in particular has been on election night panels. She's very visible on the network.

Quote

For another, are you saying calling women “primitive,” saying they “just need to be quiet and kind of do what you’re told,” defense of a guy who literally slept with children, advocacy for child marriage and literally fantasizing about the sex lives of kids does not cross that line? Are Tucker’s comments excusable to you?

I think if Tucker eventually owns up and says his comments were inappropriate and insensitive then that would be fine with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, alexava said:

The law sees rape and murder both as tiered crimes with different levels. My punishment for any rape especially children is death.. so my levels don’t really matter..

What on God’s green earth are you on about? “Ranking the order of execution?” Damn it. You’re part of the ******* problem. 

I thought the subject was clearly well defined. Guess not. Let me clear this up:

You’re making no damn sense at all. You’re equivocating, spouting bull**** by fiat. Your claim of “because he usually kills her” is flat ******* wrong. Murder of the victims of child rape and molestation is rare, even in cases of “forceful and violent rape.”

Trying to draw some distinction like Carlson because the rapist feeds/clothes/marries the child after the fact is ******* ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Auburnfan91 said:

They both make daily or every other day appearances on CNN. I'm surprised you've never heard of them or seen them. You must not watch much CNN that much. Navarro in particular has been on election night panels. She's very visible on the network.

I can’t stand CNN general, with the exception of Tapper, who I follow on Twitter.

I think cable news in general is a cancer that does more harm than good. 

1 minute ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I think if Tucker eventually owns up and says his comments were inappropriate and insensitive then that would be fine with me.

A little contrition, “I got caught up in the moment on some shock jock’s radio show and deeply regret my misguided comments” would go a long way. 

Of course, I still would not like him. The rule of goats is in play. 

(For those unfamiliar, Popehat’s rule of goats is “even if one only ***** goats ironically, you’re still ******* goats.”)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unreal that we live in a society where complete strangers of this guy are defending him, after those comments. Just goes to show how tribal humanity still is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wrong. I was curios about the bubble heads reactions. You need a life.

14 hours ago, AUDub said:

Nice hasty generalization, but apparently you do, or you wouldn’t be here commenting. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that you will liberal hosts accountable for their stupid statements.

23 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Unreal that we live in a society where complete strangers of this guy are defending him, after those comments. Just goes to show how tribal humanity still is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

I assume that you will liberal hosts accountable for their stupid statements.

 

Absolutely. If you’re wondering if I’ve ever defended a liberal making comments like F***er Carlson made, no, no I haven’t. I don’t really think I’ve heard many people make comments like that, to be honest. I’d like to think I have a bit more moral integrity than to defend someone who thinks and speaks like that, just because they align with me on a economic or social level.

On another note, this has been another classic example of “but what about”, brought to you by the people who use it constantly to defend bad behavior by people they align with politically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...