As usual, When one of Fox News regulars sticks a foot in their mouth--which happens on a routine basis--the get sent on vacation. Tucker Carlson is no exception as he claimed White Supremist groups are practically nonexistent. This shortly after the massacre in El Paso.
After numerous calls to Fox for an explanation by reporters, no one seems to be home. Carlson is known to be considered one the White Supremist Groups best allies according to one head of the group.
Enjoy your vac, Tucker!
I saw this, went to YouTube to find the segment, watched it.
I think this is typical of the left. Take something said, spin it so completely out of context even a perfunctory look at the truth of the statement can allow the casual observer a moment of head shaking at the lie, throw it out to the masses, and then shake your head again as you watch people virtually salivate at the opportunity to spread the lie.
But, I noticed in another thread you think people being lemmings was acceptable. Not surprised to see you starting this.
I watched Carlson make the statement , LTL. So why did Fox not answer calls for an explanation? And why is Carlson suddenly on vacation shortly after his spiel?
Your last sentence is totally false, LTL. You brought up lemmings in another thread comment. I never mentioned lemmings...
I brought up lemmings because your comment sounded like you expect humans to act like lemmings.
What I heard on the segment waa something to the effect of....it's a problem but put it in perspective. The number of white nationalists identified would barely fill up the stands at an average basketball game. We have lots of problems and they do not factor in anywhere near the top of the most pressing.
Not the same thing you are peddling here.
How many people would a basketball stadium full of White Supremist folks kill apiece if they have the proper weaponry? That is an AK 47 with a couple of hundred round capacity drums which are easily obtained.
If you don't consider this scenario, then you're simply blowing smoke with your comments.
I don't know, it seems to me you are assuming every person we'd label white supremacist is going to go on a shooting rampage.
They aren't ticking time bombs. They are an at risk segment of society. We have many of those we aren't addressing.
The problem I see is the left wants to name anyone they disagree with as Nazis, alt right, fascists, etc. So that is just another term the left has conveniently muddled into a confusing set of words whose definition we have no idea if we agree on.
It appears the left, by doing this, wants to throw a smokescreen they can use to falsely brand any who disagree as part of that at risk group, in an attempt to bully a large segment of the population into silence.
You don't gain converts to your way of thinking through intimidation.
What you end up doing by labeling all who you perceive as disagreeing with you the names we all detest is push many to fear this 'white supremacist' conversation is just a stepping stone by the left. They aren't fighting any violence. Not on any front. So what makes this conversation different?
At no juncture have I heard any of those laughing at their political opponents for the false allegation that those who don't agree with you are just scared of any person who isn't white argue in defense of real solutions to stem violence from any quarter. Other than this topic.
It makes one wonder what your motive is. Branding all who disagree with you as white supremacists in other discussions, now claiming all white supremacists are one gun purchase away from mass murder.
I'd be scared too, if I didn't find your arguments so see through.
These ass holes are a symptom of a larger problem. It isn't white supremacy as the only, or even the primary, force driving the violence in our nation. It is one of a large tapestry of problems we aren't willing to work together to solve.
Well said! Applying labels is a fine scare tactic, designed and often effective at producing fear and/or hate. Dividing the country is the desired result and it's working.
Applying "Labels" is perfectly appropriate if the "Label" accurately depicts a person and or group of people: Everyone knows "SCHMUCKER" Carlson is a white nationalist and Trump enabler, a clueless one at that just like all the other little weirdo evening and or late night Communist Russian Loving Propagators of HATE and Divisiveness Fox gives valuable air-time to:
We also know public evidence supports the "Labels" White Nationalist, Racist, Bigot, Misogynist, Russian Stooge, Prolific LIAR, DUMB, Reckless, Ignorant, Mentally iLL, Strange, Weird, Unpatriotic and Very Unpleasant to Look when appled to Donald John:
I have not defended him. I've said everyone using divisive rhetoric should stop. You sound more in line with racism, to me.
"I haven't defended him,"
Are you sure about that?
I have, on a number of occasions, stated his rhetoric is not helpful and someone should take away his Twitter privileges.
I have also stated all parties should stop the divisive rhetoric. I don't defend him as much as question the motives behind hypocritical posts of those who always complain about his behavior but not of other politicians who are as equally offensive.
So, stating his rhetoric is not racist when others say it is...you don't consider that defending him?
I see that as defending the English language. If multiple people use the term 'rat infested' and only one is labeled racist for using the term I'd say those people know full well the term doesn't mean what they insist it must mean when they have no problem with it as used by other individuals.
No explanation as to why an innocuous term suddenly becomes racist if one person uses it and not if it's another person?
That is only one statement among many statements and behaviors you have defended, but you don't defend him, remember?
I thought I'd seen every type of rationalization displayed here on these forums but you've come up with a new one. And it's a doozy!
I'm not defending Trump, I'm defending the English language,
[Walks away in bemused wonderment to contemplate this new thing]
Am I going to have to teach you the proper way to flounce, Sandy? There's always a proper time to do it......I know from personal experience. Matching wits with the witless is always a challenge.
LOL, I have never been good at flouncing. How do I develop this skill?
"Matching wits with the witless is always a challenge."
But it is one you are always up to isn't it?
Not surprised. You do sound quite confused most times we interact.
Are you equating bemused wonderment and contemplation with confusion?
Just asking. Someone must defend the English language.
Are you doing the liberal thing and making up your own word definitions?
Learn to pronounce
puzzled, confused, or bewildered.
"Lucy looked a little bemused"
Yeh. Too funny.
You left out the other two uses of the word:
2 : lost in thought or reverie … as distant and bemused as a Professor Emeritus listening to the prattling of his freshman class.— Michael Straight
3 : having or showing feelings of wry amusement especially from something that is surprising or perplexing
This is not another of those now popular books about a bemused outsider's sojourn in rural France, brimming with colorful locals and heart-warming anecdotes.
Hey, you've already proven you are a fan of selective outrage by taking a phrase and turning it on its head in order to pretend someone meant something they didn't (while accepting the phrase at face value from others). It appears it bothers you when such behavior is used on you.
Really now? I don't believe I've ever done that. Please provide proof or admit you made it up. Thank you.
You can go back and look at your statements themselves. I'm not your secretary.
Edit. Because I understand your comment to be an attempt to weasel out of a stated position, I invite you to review your comments on the Elijah Cummings thread. That pretty much sums up your bizarre belief that the left can use a term without condemnation but the same term used by Trump, or possibly anyone not labeled a liberal magically becomes a racist slur.
"I'm not your secretary." A time-worn phrase used by those who are too lazy to back up their own assertions and expect others to simply accept them.
Here are all my posts from the Elijah Cummings thread, minus a few off-topic ones. Please identify where it is proven I am "a fan of selective outrage by taking a phrase and turning it on its head in order to pretend someone meant something they didn't (while accepting the phrase at face value from others)." Or, are you too lazy to do that, too?
By the way, this took me all of 10 minutes.
He is a master manipulator, no doubt.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087686
What is obvious to us is clearly not obvious to his supporters. They have made it crystal clear that they will accept whatever means are employed by Trump to achieve their (his base) ends. They don't care what he says or does as long as they believe he is fighting for their idea of America. So far, anyway. The big question is, do they have a line that cannot be crossed? If so, he has not even come close in their view.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087694
"....he seems to use racist attacks to rile up his supporters because he knows that language resonates with them."
This is exactly right, though there is mounting evidence that these attacks are costing him some support among working class white women (apparently not those on hubpages) while cementing his support among working class white men.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … 087748
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you explain?
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087753
You're really not making any sense.
All I can say is, if you constantly have to explain to others that you're not racist, you're probably a racist.
Also, racists usually don't consider themselves to be racist. They truly believe their biases are based on truth.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087755
Yes, I realize it makes you wonder.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087757
Sigh....the subject is the president's use of racist attacks to fire up his base. We can agree to disagree that that is what Donald Trump is doing. That I can accept.
But to turn this discussion into this: ""I guess some just like to dig their heels in other's backs to make them feel better in their made up world. Insecurity."
That's just ridiculous. Donald Trump has displayed a pattern of racism for years. He has displayed a pattern of using racist remarks to fire up his base from the very beginning of his political life.
To characterize legitimate criticisms of these tactics as "digging their heels in other's backs to make them feel better in their made up world. Insecurity" is such a ridiculous reach of gigantic proportions as to be richly comedic.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087762
Kentucky counties make up 10 of the 25 worst places to live in the US
I'm waiting for Trump to tell Mitch to go back home and fix the $hitholes in his state.
Then he would at least be one step closer to being an equal opportunity insulter,
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087769
At least you're thinking about it, boy.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087771
Most women will just let that stuff go, GA. Now, if the "girl" moniker is also accompanied by other demeaning or condescending behaviors, then it becomes a greater issue. Otherwise, for most of us it's no big deal. At least, for my generation. Maybe the younger generation has higher expectations, as they should.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087777
That will never happen. They're sharing the spoils of their den of thieves.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087797[/url]
I agree with your last paragraph. Our president foes not.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4087851
Oh, come on. If Trump sincerely cared about the condition of Baltimore he would be reaching out to Cummings to help fix the problems. And don't give me some BS about Trump defending himself. He starts these stupid fights with his own childish tantrums.
There is no defense for this behavior from a POTUS. Our nation and our people deserve better than this.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088398
Trump started this mess by attacking four congresswomen by criticizing them personally and using a well-known racist statement rather than simply challenging their ideas. Cummings rightly defended them.
Our POTUS is a tantrum-throwing racist toddler and there is no way in hell he actually cares about Baltimore, To suggest that he was merely telling the truth is ridiculous. Yes, from what I'm reading, there are parts of Baltimore that could be described that way, bu I'm pretty confident parts of any large urban are could be described the same way.
Again, Trump doesn't care about Baltimore; he only cares about promoting himself at the expense of everyone else and at the total embarrassment of our country.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088416
So, Trump should have left years ago, given how much he complained during Obama's presidency. Right?
That is such a childish and simple-minded way to look at complex issues.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088445
So? It's still a childish and simple-minded remark, especially coming from a POTUS Just because two guys on social media like it doesn't make it any less childish and inflammatory.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088452
said: "Trump started this mess by attacking four congresswomen by criticizing them personally and using a well-known racist statement rather than simply challenging their ideas. Cummings rightly defended them."
I was referring to Trump telling the four congresswomen to go home.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088454
For the record, I don't think that accurately referring to parts of a city as rat-infested is, in and of itself, racist.
I do think this entire episode was intentionally instigated by Trump as a distraction and as red meat for his base. So what if it's true? Pretty much every large urban area has run-down areas of blight. I don't think Trump was motivated by caring for the poor people who live in those areas. He did this solely to divide and distract.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088458
I see it, too.
I can understand a genuine belief that this particular attack, as a one-off stand alone attack, is not racist. But in the context of how the conflict started, which is itself within the context of a years-long history of racist rhetoric and actions, I don't. understand how it could be viewed as anything other than yet more racist rhetoric from a life-long racist.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088473
I am just curious. Did you see the birther movement as racist?
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088561
I have to say, I am really disappointed in this response.
Don's elucidation of Trump's remarks brings home how completely unacceptable it is for a president to say such things, but here we are feebly talking about the "general" truth of it.
As I feared would happen when he was elected, Trump has normalized this behavior.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088640
I think you are also misinterpreting my disappointment. I am disappointed that you would take the time to argue the truth of the statements, as though it matters at all within the context of the entire disgusting episode.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088643
To me, there is no question that Trump is a racist. To me, there is also no question that GA is not a racist. However, I do think GA, and many of Trump's defenders, are taking focus away from the important problem (Trump using racist rhetoric to divide us) by asking if that divisive rhetoric is mitigated by some nebulous "general truth." It's like asking if a child abuser's actions are mitigated by the fact that the child committed a wrongdoing. Who cares? The actions are not in any way justifiable.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4088925
Oh no, here I go again, butting in, and in a way that will obviously be taken as defending Trump.
But . . . I see Live to Learn's point here. To argue that something some insist is racist is not really racist is not an automatic defense of the person that said whatever was said.
The speaker can be a saint or a jerk, but arguing against a categorization does not have to equate to a defense of that saint or jerk.
I think if one consistently and repeatedly finds Trump's rhetoric and actions to be defensible, then you are defending the man. The level and frequency of the lies and hate that spew from his mouth and Twitter feed make it disingenuous to separate the man from his words and behavior. That is not to say that he isn't sometimes unfairly criticized.
But, this arose because she said "I have not defended him." She clearly has and does. She believes he is fit to be President of the United States.
But what if the statements being argued weren't Trump statements, would your rationale still hold?
As for your categorization of Live to Learn's statements, that doesn't help.
By my thinking, I am not a Trump defender, even when I find myself arguing against a Trump criticism it is not because I think I am defending Trump, it is because I am criticizing something I see as wrong.
It's simply a matter of right or wrong Sandy, not taking one side or the other.
I agree that there are times when Trump's statements are unfairly criticized. But there are more times when he is legitimately criticized and she and other Trump apologists will find some tiny perceived loophole to give him an out and justify their continued support. If that's not defending the man I don't know what is.
We might just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Edit: I want to be clear I am not lumping you in with LtL or he typical Trump apologist. I think that, in the past, when you have taken one part of a longer Trump statement and defended it as truth, you have not been wrong. I also do not consider that to be defending Trump. My problem is that I consider focusing on a kernel of truth within a broader nasty, hate-filled, intentionally divisive statement from the President of the United States (which I believe makes the words exponentially more damaging) is like going in a burning house and rescuing your favorite recliner while your children and dog are being engulfed by flames. You're focusing on the wrong thing. If your children and dog weren't in there, then your rescue of your favorite recliner is at least understandable. But, when your family is burning, it's not justifiable.
According to reports, Fox Fake Channel has been in sponsor trouble for a very long time: DUMPING Fox like hot cakes: Tucker "Should be wearing a bowtie because at least it makes him look smarter" Carlson is probably GONE from our airwaves just like the rest of this alt right nationalist propaganda outlet: Another nationalist racist moron the likes of which we defeated in the 1940's is GONE from television hopefully:
"Carlson's show loses sponsors after racist audio resurfaces"
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/carlson … 04840.html
This is just UNREAL: I just caught a brief film clip of SCHMUCKER Carlson over at that Fox outlet and he actually said something like this when talking about immigrants I'm assuming without papers, coming to the USA: He said and I paraphrase" "This is like our current culture in the USA being replaced by foreigners":
I couldn't help but drop in a fit of laughter at this complete fool and then I realized how pathetic and inciteful it is:
This is the basic fear that certain white people have: that some day they will be a minority race in the U.S. This thought sends shivers down their spines and sends waves of terror through their overactive amygdalas.
Strange, I always say that is the fear of the whites on the left.
Really? Yes, that is strange.
Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes
Make yourself feel better. Think ill of others if you choose. One day, hopefully, you'll explore the insecurities that cause people to go down that path.
Sigh....understanding research is not "thinking ill of others." Did you notice I said certain whites? I stated: "This is the basic fear that certain white people have: that some day they will be a minority race in the U.S."
46% of whites worry becoming a majority-minority nation will 'weaken American culture,' survey says
White fear of demographic change is powerful psychological force
Now, do you have a rebuttal or just more unfounded nonsense?
by IslandBites 11 months ago
Is no surprise that Tucker Carlson is not a nice person. Is not surprise that Carlson is a misogynist and a racist; he doesn't hide it. But no outrage? Not even a little for his pedophiles defense? Or that he didn't even apologized? Yeah, I know. "The mob, the mob". Sounds familiar.What...
by SheriSapp 9 years ago
Would somebody explain why libs think it is acceptable to steal money from workers who earn it?
by Scott Belford 10 months ago
Trump said this soon after a white nationalist murdered 49 (so far) Muslims in Christchurch New Zealand today, 3/15/19.In Oct 2018, a White Nationalist murdered 11 people in a Synagogue in Pittsburgh, PAIn Nov 2017, a White Nationalist murdered 26 people in a black church in Sutherland Springs,...
by Don W 6 months ago
"Ohio White Nationalist Arrested After Threatening to Shoot Up Jewish Community Center""A 20-year-old from Ohio who police say has self-identified as a white nationalist was arrested Saturday after reportedly making threats against a Jewish community center in YoungstownAs soon as...
by Susie Lehto 3 years ago
But, I want Obama and Trump to see this video a mother posted on Facebook. We have a problem when children are treated with cruelty because they voted for Trump at school. I am sure that child protection has already been contacted and this mother has been relieved of her duties until...
by JAKE Earthshine 7 months ago
Can’t be surprised about this can we? Sean Hammity and the rest of the pathetic unpatriotic Circus Clown Brigade over at Fox have earned a foul reputation for catering to racists, bigots, misogynists, gay bashers and of course they air garbage which seems to appeal to the last remaining Wretched...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|