The tape in which Carlson lambasted Bregman exploded on social media Wednesday. The tape, filmed by Bregman, was of an interview intended for Carlson’s show, but it was spiked.
“You are a millionaire funded by billionaires, that’s what you are.... You’re part of the problem,” Bregman tells Carlson in the video. Carlson can then be heard saying, “Moron... I want to say to you, why don’t you go fuck yourself ― you tiny brain. And I hope this gets picked up because you’re a moron,” the host yells. “I tried to give you a hearing, but you were too fucking annoying.”
February 21, 2019
"There is some profanity, and I apologize for that. On the other hand, it was genuinely heartfelt, and I meant it with total sincerity."
Said Tucker Carlson, about an interview he did with Rutger Bregman:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
64 comments:
"Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World"
I always heard Utopia means no place in Greek (I'm sure this is apocryphal).
"No Place for Realists...."
Sounds about right.
Seems fair.
Who stepped on whose dick here?
Sometimes idiots need to be crushed.
I’m not going to send a lot of energy defending morons from being told they’re morons when they’ve been warned and kept coming back for more.
This should get the apologies tag! I’m sorry but I meant it.
The tape, filmed by Bregman, was of an interview intended for Carlson’s show
Why doesn't every conservative do this when interviewed? Especially when by the FBI, since they don't.
Carlson shows his ideas in this very good speech.
Nobody tells him what to say. I sometimes watch his show, the only TV I ever watch except sports.
Fucking is just an intensifier, with a nod to its being an emergency situation.
That there is a go-pound-sand apology.
Carlson shows his ideas in this very good speech.
Nobody tells him what to say. I sometimes watch his show, the only TV I ever watch except sports.
2/21/19, 8:50 AM
Tucker seems to be one of the few Washington establishment members who took Trump's victory to heart and actually rethink his positions as well as try to understand the working class who rallied to Trump.
Tucker Carlson has done a good job of taking over for Bill O’Reilly, who was a populist.
Can't cuck the Tuck.
Here's a great video some goof took of Tucker fly fishing in Central Park. Seems like good guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylmkVh-vCRw
Blogger MayBee said...
Who stepped on whose dick here?
I actually saw that once. The film was kinda scratchy though.
Had to look him up. He proposes a universal income, 15 hour work week and open borders.
That would solve many problems. No more wealth to worry about for one. F'ing moron is an adequate description.
Tucker Carlson is way too heavy handed and, frankly, not all that bright.
Whatever you think of O'Reilly, he was a much better talk-show host.
No tucker is more curious, and less ego.
The Fox News Channel seems to love this new promotional angle, where their "not Republican pro-American populists" get to sell themselves as everymen.
~ Tucker Carlson, with a book cover that ridicules Mitch McConnell alongside Maxine Waters.
~ Sean "I'm not a Republican" Hannity, night after night.
~ "The Next Revolution" with that thing, Steve Hilton.
~ Straight out of predawn AM radio, Mark Levin. With the calmly sober title, "Life, Liberty, Levin."
I always liked Fox's rightward tilt. I thought that it was an invaluable public service in our left-leaning media environment. I've been a huge Fox fan for as long as I can remember.
What I mind about Fox is its recent move toward "dumb" and "sensationalist" and this new populist garbage. Fox used to be the home to George Will and Bill Kristol and Steve Hayes and Charles Krauthammer. Fox used to be the place to see smart conservative commentary. Now it is where Tucker Carlson gets into fights with heretofore unknowns about one or another campus speech controversies or some abortion-related video sting. The tabloid version of conservatism.
Tucker is an analytic thinker who always lets the other side have a fair say on an issue.The miracle is that the Murdoch Boys have not yet fired him for being so intellectually effective. Tucker's book " Ship of Fools" is a careful analysis of the culture wars that is a dispassionate yet perfect 10 on all of the points.
Tucket is spotting this antifa intellectuals and other scamsters who others wont challenge. After nearly 18 years it's reasonable to ask what we've accomplished in the long war.
What a waste of breath on this (Word of the Day) turd.
Tucker’s schtick is a bit different from O’Reilly. But his ratings are solid. Just a bit lower than O’Reilly but very good.
Tucker doesn’t get the higher profile guests that O’Reilly got at times. But his audience doesn’t seem to mind not hearing Rubio or Ryan bullshit.
And Tucker does a good job bashing the GOP from the populist perspective. They are the party of war, high debt, and open borders. They are very selfish people. Bad Americans.
Hagar said...
"Tucker Carlson is way too heavy handed and, frankly, not all that bright."
Watch the speech Michael K. linked to, or an interview he gave to Dave Rubin. He's very bright and extremely funny. While he does not call himself an intellectual, his positions on Trump and populism are far more nuanced and interesting than you might think and the nuances don't really come though on his show.
I dismissed him as a preppy, bow-tied lightweight for years, until I saw him on a AEI panel with P.J. O'Rourke, Jonathan Last, Jonah Goldberg and I forget who else talking about fatherhood. That was in 2015, I believe, before the Trump phenomenon drove Last and Goldberg and O'Rourke off the deep end. They were all amusing, but Carlson stole the show. I had no idea he was so funny. And, of everyone on that panel, he was the only one who made an honest effort to understand Trump and the people who voted for Trump. He is thriving as a result, while Last and Goldberg have revealed themselves as pathetic Deep State butt boys.
O'Reilly got really annoying with his "I'm the only adult in the room - both sides are wrong and I'll tell you what the right view is".
His criticism of the Conservatives/Republicans didn't win him any friends on the Left. They still hated him. CF: Terry Gross NPR interview.
I'm amazed how Tucker has changed, since he used to be a Bow-tied wimp on Crossfire. His interaction with Jon Stewart was embarrassing. Stewart kept insulting him, and he responding with hand-waving and saying telling bad jokes.
IRC, they cancelled the show soon after that.
I could never stand O'Reilly. I probably agreed with him far more than not, but I found his personality insufferable.
As for Tucker, although I've never actually watched his show, in the clips I've seen of him Tucker seems to be slightly more self aware and willing to admit when he was wrong. He just seems more entertaining and less pompus. But that's just my impression from various clips I;ve seen on Youtube over the years. I don't doubt that there are plenty of Tucker haters who would be more than willing to point out his failings.
“Fox used to be the home to George Will and Bill Kristol and Steve Hayes and Charles Krauthammer. Fox used to be the place to see smart conservative commentary.“
Now that right there is some fine satire.
Tucker’s opening monologue each night is must-see commentary. It is full of outrage, brave, icon-toppling. It is the best articulation of What Trump Wrought out there, bar none. His interviews later in the show with liberals is often the worst thing on the show. Shout-fests where Tucker sometimes gets bested by obnoxious overtalkers.
But that opening ...you really should watch it.
Carson's unprofessional outburst may reflect the pressure to produce content night after night.
Bill Kristol and George Will are so conservative they're now on MSNBC. And they fit right in.
“You are a millionaire funded by billionaires, that’s what you are...”
So was Hillary Clinton. Also true of nearly every major candidate for the presidency in the Democrat Party, including Bernie Sanders. What’s the guy’s point? That the Republicans can figure out how to beat the Democrats at their own game?
Tucker is very bright. Erick Erickson and Glenn Beck - not that's "Not very bright".
But almost anyone on the Right has be intelligent, since they are attacked mercilessly by the Left 24/7. Not so on the Left. Pretty much everyone on MSNBC is an idiot. The only exception is Chris Matthews, and even he constantly says moronic things or gets "tingles up his leg".
Bernie is a millionaire funded by billionaires.
All the folks on the Clinton payroll at their foundation are millionaires - and possibly people in the MSM.
I prefer Tucker to Bill O'Reilly. Bill is too full of himself and yammers on endlessly before he gets to a point.
M. Jordan, I agree with your assessment. Carlson's opening monologues are the best thing on cable news.
The media isn't kinda sorta a leftwing conspiracy. It IS a leftwing conspiracy.
They will come after you.
Brave female speaks truth to power
Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
I prefer Tucker to Bill O'Reilly. Bill is too full of himself and yammers on endlessly before he gets to a point.
Yup. He is reduced to calling Sean Hannity top plug his books.
Tucker uses humor and has some interesting guests. Most Fox News is just yelling at each other
a preppy, bow-tied lightweight for years,
He got rid of the bow tie pretty fast. I like bow ties and have a collection of them but don't wear ties anymore.
I think we can all agree that Hannity is the worst.
Lucid-Ideas said...
"Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World"
I always heard Utopia means no place in Greek (I'm sure this is apocryphal).
"No Place for Realists...."
Sounds about right."
The ideal society for realists (given the present state of economic, technological, and political development) is called a Eutopia (meaning "good place" from the prefix eu, meaning good, and topos meaning place) not a Utopia (which indeed means "no place"). What should that ideal be? Well, equality of opportunity is clearly not enough because it is primarily intended for the talented and the gifted, for whom "the American dream" is the dream of success, riches, rising to the top of their chosen profession, etc.
No, a true Eutopia would be one in which everyone who works hard and plays by the rules (Bill Clinton's formula still can't be beat) can reasonably hope to lead a rich and fulfilling life regardless of race or iq. We don't have that now, which is one reason there is so much racial tension in our society.
But is such a thing possible? And, if so, what would it look like? In part at least it might look something like this: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B07L7W5GKZ&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_SnTBCb19J7C2P
Not for everyone, to be sure, but at least a choice for some, possibly a very large percentage of ordinary people, for whom the blue state model of a welfare state seems destined to collapse in the not too distant future. We need to think outside the box.
I don't watch much Fox because I don't like to hear politics all the time. I prefer to read about it and choose what I read. During the day I have CNBC on for the stock news which also means I get all the liberal news, way more than I need.
"He explained that he was angry about Bregman’s suggestion that he gets told by Fox News what he can and can’t say on air."
The useful data point here is not Carlson's reaction but the original prog smear, illustrating the sort of casual, baseless, egghead denunciation of anyone to the right of the left that is routine inside the prog bubble--the bubble Smollett grew up in and counted on, and which came through for him at first, the bubble that by now encompasses most of the MSM, pop culture, and higher ed. Good for Carlson to call BS, but of course, it won't stop the smears.
I really like the new and improved TuCa. O'Reilly used to just try to beat down his opponents (although he could be an extremely good interviewer when he didn't have an opinion to push), while TuCa most of the time asks very simple but devastating questions and then waits while they try to change the subject or wriggle out of it by spewing talking points.
And he will shut up when needed. He had Richard Dreyfuss -- a modern Left-Liberal if there ever was one -- on once, who was on to talk about his civics initiative and TuCa asked Dreyfuss a question or two but mostly let him say his thing. You could tell TuCa was expecting a big argument, but he let him speak (because Dreyfuss was actually making some sense). It was amazing. He didn't try to make a big argument when there was none.
Video here.
" like bow ties and have a collection of them but don't wear ties anymore."
Surprising MK - you don't fit the stereotype.
rcocean, said:
"The only exception is Chris Matthews, and even he constantly says moronic things or gets "tingles up his leg".
Chris needs to check his cis-gendered, white male privilege.
BTW, Bregman is your typical cliche spouting Leftist moron. He's in favor of a universal income AND open borders.
But it will all work, if we just wish really, really, hard.
The funny thing is this- by waiting and letting Bregman release the video, this has turned it into invaluable PR for Carlson. You get a hint of this because Carlson seemed to be prodding Bregman to do just that. Leftists are so easily played.
When you have to find "smart conservative thinking" on MSNBC, you might want to check your priors, Chuck.
"a true Eutopia would be one in which everyone who works hard and plays by the rules (Bill Clinton's formula still can't be beat) can reasonably hope to lead a rich and fulfilling life regardless of race or iq. We don't have that now, which is one reason there is so much racial tension in our society."
Actually, we do have that now.
Sex robots and sex dolls reinforce the view that robots and dolls are objects and normalise men's violence against robots and dolls, especially 12 year-old men and their sisters' Barbie dolls, three feminist Swedish organisations claim. They're demanding legislation targeting technology that "reproduces ideas about exploiting robots' and dolls' bodies", namely the paper, ink and the text editing software which people use to reproduce their ideas.
Three Swedish feminist organisations, Sweden's Women's Hobby Lobby, the National Organisation for Women's No-Kill Shelters and Young Women's Shelters Oldsters Get Lost as well as the empowerment organisation Unizon have published a joint appeal in the newspaper Expressen, in which they demand a state ban on everything that feminists don't like.
"Why are men willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a robot that obeys their smallest command?" the feminists asked rhetorically. "A robot cannot say no to something that the man wants, since it is just a machine, unlike a vibrating dildo that only vibrates consensually when it's in the mood", the feminists complained.
Blogger rcocean said...
" like bow ties and have a collection of them but don't wear ties anymore."
Surprising MK - you don't fit the stereotype.
Bow Tie.
When you think about it, telling a news anchor that s/he gets told what to say is really a cheap & stupid insult. Does Bregman think that corporate bullying of the staff is limited to Fox News? I don't think even any half-way sentient lefty believes corporate interference in the media is relegated to only the right side of the spectrum. Certainly, it's been part & parcel of the message of lefties like Chomsky that corporate interference is so ubiquitous in our lives that the press is not "free" but serves corporate interests instead.
In essence, Bregman's insult was either telling the fish it's wet, or it indicates a really naive view of American corporate politics.
Tucker's show is different from most in that he invites on people who strongly disagree with him. He then asks them to explain their positions, lets them do so and challenges them, but lets them get plenty of words in, including the crazy shit, and often he just lets that sit there for all to see. I like it. We need more of that, and there is zero of it on any other networks but FOX. The more intelligent left has no real confidence in its ideas, but it has some stupid people who believe and are willing to show off that stupidity.
TuCa most of the time asks very simple but devastating questions and then waits while they try to change the subject or wriggle out of it by spewing talking points.
I watch him once in awhile, rarely the whole show. What I like is he will actually call out a guest for lying. Says "That is not true, and you know it". In a generally civil way. And, the guests I have seen him debate are not some dummy off the street, usually articulate and informed.
There are certainly people who are willing to say things just for money, but I don't think you need to do that to get good entertaining people with their own ideas that will do the same. In other words, you don't need to pay someone like Tucker to do what he does. I'd do it for free, and so would lots of others.
I liked how he named Michael Avenatti "the creepy porn lawyer", called him that to his face, and refused to stop when Avenatti was on his show. Some people just do not deserve common decency, and it waters decency down to give them it.
For those in favor of universal income, I'd ask you to do your part and simply pay your gardener, babysitter, plumber, or whoever, but ask them not to come and do any work. Just send them a check every. fucking. week.
Blogger rcocean said...
" like bow ties and have a collection of them but don't wear ties anymore."
Surprising MK - you don't fit the stereotype.
--
High tendency to be economists
The word Fucking is a vulgarity, not a profanity. There's a difference.
Post a Comment