The Tucker Carlson thread

RexImperator

Crow
Gold Member
Is there a huge difference between eating bugs and shrimp or lobster? The main one I can think of is that the taste will reflect these creatures’ diet and environment so I expect bugs will taste like earth, rotten wood, etc. vs. the ocean. Not something I’m personally interested in.

The Chinese do eat things like scorpions, etc.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
Is there a huge difference between eating bugs and shrimp or lobster? The main one I can think of is that the taste will reflect these creatures’ diet and environment so I expect bugs will taste like earth, rotten wood, etc. vs. the ocean. Not something I’m personally interested in.

The Chinese do eat things like scorpions, etc.

Somehow I am remembering the scene from excorcism of emily rose where she is eating bugs in the corner of the room.

What really disgusts me isn't the bugs themselves, but the fact we have clearly better food, normal food, which they are trying to replace so we can eat their bug soup.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
I once read somewhere that life was 5% pure joy, 5 % heartbreak and the other 90% was maintenance.

Similarly human nature strives to categorize everything in life as good or bad, black or white, positive or negative...etc etc. Its just a hardwired mechanism.

This innate need to label obviously extends to people. Good / bad, positive/ negative......friend or foe. Its a survival instinct.

But the truth is that like life most people are the 90 %. They / we arent black or white....We're gray when it comes to effect on other people.

Tucker is grey to me but his "net" classification iswhite / positive / friend because when he voices positions that align with my opinion he's reaching people I cant. And I derive the benefit of knowing that I am not alone in my POV.

But he is not my leader. He is not the hero of my journey...I am

I believe people in general, and men specifically are disappointed by other men to an equal degree that corresponds with the others perceived role. Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson, Ron DeSantis, etc etc are no more disappointing and let me down no more in their failings as men than a prominent employee in my business would have.

All men are imperfect and no man is my leader.

Ive never "carried water" for Tucker but in terms of position he is singularly valuable and in the net positive side of the ledger...for me. We he isnt Ill fire him (stop watching him)
 
Last edited:

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
There's a world of difference between trying one cicada cookie as it's something that won't happen again for 17 years vs pushing it as a regular diet choice. I tried a fried insect snack once whilst I was in Asia, does that mean I'm completely cucked now?
This is the second time this same argument has been used.

You are arguing against a position that has not been stated by anyone on this board. If you see eating bugs when there are plenty of other options as no big deal, you can state so, but to exaggerate the opposing argument into something that was never even implied, to me, means you're on the losing side. It's not a strawman, it's grasping at straws that aren't even there to begin with.

But he is not my leader. He is not the hero of my journey...I am

...

All men are imperfect and no man is my leader.

Ive never "carried water" for Tucker but in terms of position he is singularly valuable and in the net positive side of the ledger...for me. We he isnt Ill fire him (stop watching him)
@Papaya : I really appreciate this take.

In all my arguments against Tucker, I'm really trying to show the people on this board the bigger picture.

I watched Tucker regularly last year and loved it, loved him, and most of his guests. His show was useful to me at the time and helped me better explain thoughts I was having.

Once he showed that he wasn't willing to do election shenanigan coverage, or pound everyone about Jan 6, I knew something wasn't right and so I dropped him. I made the choice that one day you may make yourself. Or not make yourself. That's up to you.

Above I linked to an article about Finkelthink. After doing so, I found this FTN clip and it is jaw dropping. Who came up with the terms "Make America Great Again," and "3D Chess"? What purpose did Kanye West serve in last year's election? What types of politicians are there in the US? Why do female politicians wear pantsuits? What is the primary job of a political consultant (hint: it's not to cater to their constituents' concerns)...It's all here. 50 years of American politics summed up in 80 minutes.


If you've dismissed me outright for any reason, please listen to that link above. After listening if you still defend Tucker (and the system, which he plays a huge role in) at least you heard and considered a differing viewpoint. And if you disagree earnestly and post here, I'll read and consider every word you say.
 

DeWoken

Robin
@fokm Thanks for the avatar explanation. I will probably watch that art video.

If a bunch of Biden/Bernie supporters had been rounded up by the government and put into solitary confinement, it would be the lead story for weeks or months on the MSNBC/CNN programs. Those programs talked more about officer Brian Sicknick (the one who died of a stroke after the supposed 'insurrection') than Tucker Ashli Babbitt.

But Tucker fought the ADL once for 3 days, so I guess that's good enough per the standards of a few here.
You expect one man to be as effective as the whole rest of the MSM?

I'm sure of the many arguments I've made against Tucker there is a strawman, or two, or three.

But I've made many, many arguments.

The eating of cicadas, to me, is really not defensible and is a big deal. That's why I'm pressing it. When you pair it with his dad being head of PBS and Tucker working with the likes of Bill Kristol and John Bolton for most of his career...how many strawmen do you need?
To be clear on what words mean:
strawman2.jpg
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.


As I explained in my previous post (quite well if I do say so myself)


Tucker has to conform somewhat or be shut down - make sense? To illustrate, imagine there are 24 different news topics, and each topic has a "cucking scale" which goes from 0-3. He needs to pick up 10 points total or he gets the axe. So which topics do you chose to cuck on and how hard? He ramps up the alien invasion to a 3 - because whatever - the veganism to a 1 or 2 - hey, it's convo with the girls! - but the vaccine doesn't go above a 1, because people getting blood clots or sterilized against their will is a really serious and immediate issue. Something like this.

And if you don't buy that... whether he's a CIA guy or just a little dumb, who knows and for now it just doesn't matter that much.

About the nephew question, you failed miserably. You now have zero visitation rights. Just wait until his liberal, millionaire grandpa hears you've exposed his grandson to "FASH the Nation". Don't expect him to bail you out when you get into a jam.
 
Last edited:

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
@fokm Thanks for the avatar explanation. I will probably watch that art video.


You expect one man to be as effective as the whole rest of the MSM?
I never said or implied that I had that expectation.

But last year that man's ratings were something like over double his competition.

My argument is that he can be much, much more effective than he currently is, if only he covered stories for our side like the other side covers stories for their side.

About the nephew question, you failed miserably. You now have zero visitation rights. Just wait until his liberal, millionaire grandpa hears you've exposed his grandson to "FASH the Nation". Don't expect him to bail you out when you get into a jam.
You asked me a question. I answered it honestly. I didn't realize I was taking a test or that my nephew/neice had a millioniare grandpa and that I was going to need bailing out anytime soon.

I also thought "visitation rights" had to do with wanting custody, seeing as I have been through that system and I, as a man, won custody of my daughter after a nearly 10-year legal battle.

But sure, tell me more about how I've failed as a person. I'm listening.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
Tucker flying really close to the sun...

Last night

-Black on White hate crime

-Capitol 1/6 "riot" orchestrated by FBI

-Leading NY mayoral candidate calling for police abolition funded by George Soros

-Woke culture collapsing from the inside




Holy smokes

I dont know why or how but Im glad he's at least saying it
 
Last edited:

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
I'm glad he's saying it too.

I'm still frustrated with him. The story about "foiled" Whitmer kindapping and its relation to Jan 6 is something that Tucker's team could have been working on for months. Instead, Revolver News ran that story.

Tucker is amplifying that story and that's useful, but had the Revolver story not run, Tucker wouldn't be talking about Jan 6 at all, as has been proven.

When I watched Tucker, it was to go a little deeper than things I'd see on Twitter. Without watching him, I'm much better informed.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Who is suggesting those men who stormed the capital were gov operatives...and how did they get the evidence?
I say skip Tucker and read the source -- you'll likely get more detail than he provides. The source for all of this, everything is here:


TLDR: The FBI was directly involved in the kidnapping attempt last year of Michigan Governor Whitmer, comprising 35% of the people involved in the attempt!! Since those people were undercover Feds, they are immune from prosecution. Revolver connects the dots to unprosecuted people from Jan 6, and there happen to be many people who have done worse actions than those sitting in solitary. The article reasons that since there could have been no plea bargains, these unprosecuted people were undercover feds. Cherry on top: The head of the FBI field office in Detroit, Steven D'Antuano, was promoted after the "failed kidnapping" to DC, and is now overseeing the investigation. How convenient!

That's just a taste.

This means that the government conspired to frame Trump voters. If this all pans out, it means that the government is literally the enemy of the people, given Trump's majority win in 2016.
 
Last edited:

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
This is nothing new. The feds have been "entrapping" patsies for decades.

There was a story a few years ago about a few American born first gen Muslims that got reluctantly recruited into "terror" plots where the idea was actually initiated by feds. The "recruits" ended up getting massive sentences for "conspiracy" even though nothing ever happened and the "plots" were totally imaginary.

The feds are nothing more than evil puppets at the hands that control them
 

Tactician

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Kind of on topic, Roosh wrote a short story a few years back about the FBI setting up these false flags. The story is titled Jake Ultra. It's pretty memorable & I enjoyed it. https://www.rooshv.com/jake-ultra Excerpt:
My supervisors at the FBI told me that before the attacks were to begin, we would arrest Jake and use him as an example of the terroristic danger of the American right wing. I was fine with this plan, since no one would get hurt and we would remove a dangerous man from the streets, but at the last minute, the FBI instructed me to allow him to hit one of the four cities. Then they would arrest him and expose the plot without identifying their role in creating it. Their reasoning for allowing Jake to hit one city is that it would be easier for their political allies in Washington D.C. to pass further surveillance legislation that would treat all white men as terrorists, no different than Islamic terrorists. This plan would ensure that whites could never pose a threat to state power.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
It kind of is. They've organized this kind of crap before, but usually it's been lone weirdos who help some individual FBI stooge advance their career by getting credit for "stopping an attack" and get clickbait headline for a day or two.

This one is different because the entire agenda to weaponize the police state and throw any political dissidents in jail for "terrorism" hinges on the narrative of January 6 being a horrific attack organized by white supremacists who were mere minutes away from slaughtering our sacred high leaders and destroying democracy.

If instead the perception is that the government organized the entire thing it's bad, bad, news for the plan and significantly raises the risk of having to deal with actual resistance.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
I think @Easy_C raises a great point: the scope of this is big. Maybe not the operation to 'entrap' these 'rioters' on Jan 6, but per Vladimir Putin, there are 450 'rioters' in solitary awaiting trial right this minute.

It's one thing to get a loan gunman or a small group, but to get 450 people and treat them this way -- each of those people likely has a family and many friends. When that many people are all exposed at once to a corrupt system, well, things can get out of hand.

And to me the real problem is what can the government feasibly do? They can't just drop charges, but having these go to trial will be worse for them with a few good lawyers on the other side. Can they plea bargain? Maybe, but that's 450 to do.

I've always maintained that Jan 6 was supposed to be much worse. I believe bombs, placed by feds, were supposed to go off . For some reason that didn't happen, but they 'actors' followed the script anyway. So far the media has covered for the feds.

But when more truth comes out (and it will), things will get dicey and there will be fewer options to cleanly deal with this than there are right now.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
The majority if not all those people now being held were there as an ad hoc protest thinking they were exercising freedom of assembly, speech and protest.

Its purely an intimidation against anyone even thinking of actually organizing a true nationalist patriot group. Thats the ONLY thing that ((( they ))) are truly afraid of.

Thats why the MSM narrative is that "white supremacists" are the biggest national security issue. From their perspective it is
 
Last edited:

Easy_C

Peacock
I've always maintained that Jan 6 was supposed to be much worse. I believe bombs, placed by feds, were supposed to go off . For some reason that didn't happen, but they 'actors' followed the script anyway. So far the media has covered for the feds.
I've felt that as well. Bombs were on site and there were some individuals with pipe bombs who, incidentally, remain un-identified and un-charged. CCN reporting says bombs were placed "the night before".

Finding out why is somewhat anecdotal but it caught my attention that some people from the retired SpecOps community, such as Popp but there are others, decided that they were going to show up and were "pulling security". Popp has also hinted that there was some kind of activity that took place the night prior.

I'm purely speculating but either due to incompetence or because someone got wind of the operation and sabotaged it the event failed to produce the mass casualty event that was supposed to happen.
 
Top