WowBB Forums Home 
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > Tucker Carlson Defended Child Marriage and Explored Lesbian Pedofile Fantasies on Radio Show

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi  
AuthorPost
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48748
Status: 
Offline
Bubba the Love Sponge back in the news, this time for interviews he had with Tucker Carlson about 10 years ago.  I actually would've loved Carlson's statement on not apologizing if he was just being busted for the normal PC bullshit regarding his insensitive language towards women, but when you read the transcripts, holy shit, it's pretty fucking bad.  He tries to defend arranged marriages between teenage girls and grown men involved in religious cults (even Bubba was disgusted) and then said that he would love to fantasize about girls at his daughter's boarding school exploring each other's bodies!  (And of course this asshole sent his daughter away to a boarding school).  He basically admitted to liking underage girls, there's really not much wiggle room there.  Whether or not he's ever done anything with young girls I guess will come out in time, but he definitely seems jealous of those who have.   

I'm waiting for the religious right and Blue Thunder and the usual cast of characters to defend this, but we already know they will. 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tucker-carlson-unapologetic-over-misogynistic-comments-on-statutory-rape-insults-against-women/ar-BBUC0c6?ocid=ientp

Last edited on Mon Mar 11th, 2019 03:40 pm by srossi

KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 1147
Status: 
Offline
The bit about the girls at boarding school is pretty icky, but other than that what he said isn't really beyond the pale. He went overboard saying Mike Vick should be executed, but I'm going to guess he was engaging in a bit of hyperbole that didn't translate to the printed word.

You're really not being honest when you say he was trying to "defend" arranged marriage between teenage girls and grown men. The case in question involved a 27 year old man and a 16 year old girl. Sixteen is the age of consent in much of the country. Now, if some 27 year old was sniffing around my 16 year old daughter, I'd give him what-for. I'm not saying everyone should be on board with it, but neither was Tucker. He was just pointing out that there's a difference between statutory rape in the context of a marriage and violent rape.

I also agree that the current system of allowing anonymous accusations of rape can be abused. That shouldn't even be arguable given the several cases of high-profile rape hoaxes in recent years. It's not that I want to expose those making the accusation, but the person being accused should have more protections until credible evidence can be gathered. The mere accusation of rape is a devastating and permanent indictment of a person, no matter whether that person's guilty or innocent (or somewhere in between).

By the way, when the article you linked to goes to Michael Avenatti for his comment (called Tucker a "complete dirtbag") then I'm going to conclude that it's little more than a hit piece.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48748
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote: The bit about the girls at boarding school is pretty icky, but other than that what he said isn't really beyond the pale. He went overboard saying Mike Vick should be executed, but I'm going to guess he was engaging in a bit of hyperbole that didn't translate to the printed word.

You're really not being honest when you say he was trying to "defend" arranged marriage between teenage girls and grown men. The case in question involved a 27 year old man and a 16 year old girl. Sixteen is the age of consent in much of the country. Now, if some 27 year old was sniffing around my 16 year old daughter, I'd give him what-for. I'm not saying everyone should be on board with it, but neither was Tucker. He was just pointing out that there's a difference between statutory rape in the context of a marriage and violent rape.

I also agree that the current system of allowing anonymous accusations of rape can be abused. That shouldn't even be arguable given the several cases of high-profile rape hoaxes in recent years. It's not that I want to expose those making the accusation, but the person being accused should have more protections until credible evidence can be gathered. The mere accusation of rape is a devastating and permanent indictment of a person, no matter whether that person's guilty or innocent (or somewhere in between).

By the way, when the article you linked to goes to Michael Avenatti for his comment (called Tucker a "complete dirtbag") then I'm going to conclude that it's little more than a hit piece.

I don't care about Michael Avenatti's comments, I care about Carlson's.  His quotes are provided and I didn't read any of the editorials.  He was absolutely fine saying that grabbing women off the street and raping them are worse, because proportionality is important and something liberals have no sense of, but you and I both know he started to dig a much deeper hole after he said that and his entire point was to defend creepy older men lusting after teenagers.  As you read deeper, it becomes more clear.  By the time he's talking about wanting to see teenage girls fuck ("pretty icky" might be an understatement) he had gone off the rails and you know it.  You don't say something like that in public (even in 2009, which isn't exactly 1869) unless your private thoughts regarding teenage girls are pretty fucked up.  And Bubba the Love Sponge is hardly a paragon of virtue, so when he stops joking around and starts saying that you're going too far, then you've gone too far. 

Just the boarding school fantasies about his daughter's friends is really the only quote you need.  There's no defending that one so give it up.  Now look at yourself in the mirror and admit that if Bill Clinton said that, your head would fucking explode and you'd be screaming about secret trips to pedofile islands or something. 

Last edited on Mon Mar 11th, 2019 07:00 pm by srossi

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6857
Status: 
Offline
Before Carlson became an actor for Fox News, he was a libertarian through and through. That would have been his belief on a marriage between a 16 year old and 27 year old. I don't agree with that stance for the record. Just saying that is pretty consistent with what he believed before Fox News. As for liking underage girls himself, that is pretty odd and strange especially for a "moral" person like him. As for Avenatti, who gives a shit what he thinks?

Wait until I post something about Jacob Wohl. Then we will have some fun.

KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 1147
Status: 
Offline
This is what Carlson said:

"Now this guy may be . . ., may be a child rapist.  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."
 
He explicitly says he's not defending underage marriage, yet you claimed he was "defending arranged marriages between teenage girls and adult men."  Can you see why I said you're not being honest?
 
As for the boarding school stuff, let's just make sure we're clear that it was Bubba who brought up the subject of the girls sexually experimenting, not Carlson.  It appears that all he said was that he would love that scenario if it wasn't his daughter.  I'm not condoning that, but it wasn't like he came out with it by himself or introduced the topic. 

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6857
Status: 
Offline
Yea, Carlson is a paradigm of fucking virtue.

KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 1147
Status: 
Offline
Ultimark wrote: As for Avenatti, who gives a shit what he thinks?


Exactly.  So why is the Washington Post publishing an article about a right wing media figure in which it Twitter-quotes a litany of left-wingers?  Is that journalism?  Yet the ComPost will spend millions on a Superbowl ad to tell us that the very notion of "fake news" is threat to our way of life.   

Superstar
2018 Poster of the Year


Joined: Thu Jan 31st, 2008
Location: Isle Of, Malta
Posts: 5389
Status: 
Offline
Tucker Carlson sounds like the opening act at a Bananas Comedy Club. Just sayin'

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48748
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote: This is what Carlson said:

"Now this guy may be . . ., may be a child rapist.  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."
 
He explicitly says he's not defending underage marriage, yet you claimed he was "defending arranged marriages between teenage girls and adult men."  Can you see why I said you're not being honest?
 
As for the boarding school stuff, let's just make sure we're clear that it was Bubba who brought up the subject of the girls sexually experimenting, not Carlson.  It appears that all he said was that he would love that scenario if it wasn't his daughter.  I'm not condoning that, but it wasn't like he came out with it by himself or introduced the topic. 


And he's MY quote:

He was absolutely fine saying that grabbing women off the street and raping them are worse, because proportionality is important and something liberals have no sense of, but you and I both know he started to dig a much deeper hole after he said that and his entire point was to defend creepy older men lusting after teenagers. 

So you're lying about what I said and ignoring the mush worse quotes that he later says, all while saying I'm being dishonest.  Hilarious.  The quote you chose to focus on was the starting point of his argument, and if he had stopped there he would've been OK.  He did not. 

Last edited on Tue Mar 12th, 2019 02:34 pm by srossi

BlueThunder



Joined: Mon Jun 6th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 2171
Status: 
Offline
Jeez, this was over 12 years ago on a shock jocks show. If he said this on 60 Minutes or 20/20, it would be much different. Does anyone really listen to shock jocks for serious talk? This was classic tongue-n-cheeck. I'm glad he's not backing down. The left has had a major hard on for FOX newscasters. If they eliminate Ingraham, Hannity, and Carlson, they have a virtual monopoly on disseminating leftist garbage in TV.

tamalie
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4298
Status: 
Offline
I listen to the Jason Ellis Show on SiriusXM. It is a shock jock show of sorts. Yesterday the Tucker Carlson story came up and one of the show's producers/sidekicks Kevin Craft noted that years ago he worked for a radio station that aired the Bubba The Love Sponge Show. He didn't say this specifically, but it seemed from what he said that this affiliate had Kevin with his hand on the button to bleep anything on a 7 second delay that might have gotten the station in hot water with the FCC, certain listeners, and advertisers.

Kevin stated that he had to pay close attention to the entire show and as Tucker Carlson made his comeback of sorts on Fox News in recent years, he thought back to his regular Bubba appearances and whether or not some of what he said would get him in hot water. He said this only scratched the surface and that were far more embarrassing and potentially offensive things that Carlson stated. He said anyone digging through old tapes wouldn't need to go deep or stop at this instance if they wanted to hang the guy out to dry.

That said, Kevin, Ellis, and the rest of the crew, who cover a number of different political bases, said that the Bubba show was a totally different environment than a regular news show and that what gets said on these sorts of shows somewhat exists in a different reality than news shows or news channels and therefore has to be seen in the context of being intentionally shocking with a goal towards being humorous even if many didn't find it funny (not their exact words, but that was the gist of it). They added that the bar for what is considered acceptable humor, which isn't universal in the first place, has moved since then and that even in the context of such shock jock shows, you probably couldn't get away with saying something like that now without the great risk of getting roasted alive on Twitter and Facebook.

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6857
Status: 
Offline
Pretty much everything Carlson has said is covered under the 1st A. However, the 1st A does not protect you from negative consequences from asserting that right.

The ratings are still high for Carlson. However, according to someone I know who now works at the local Fox station in NY (worked at FNC a decade ago - in production), the real trouble for Carlson is that there are now less ads on his show than before. They take 4 breaks instead of 5 and more of the ads are now the type that promote other Fox shows. That means the show is not making the $ it should be based on the audience size.

In Murdock land $$$ come before everything else. So, according to this guy, that is Tucker's real risk - economic. That is what cost Beck his job at Fox. They had trouble selling ad time for his hour. The same thing has been happening now with Carlson. Again, the guy I know tells me that the same 3 million people will watch whoever takes over his show if they make the change. The rumor mill in NY media is that the Murdocks are considering it but want the heat to die down first. They don't want to be seen giving into pressure like they did with O'Reilly.

I heard a couple of these tapes and clearly he was trying to be a bit outrageous. I suspect a lot of it was feigned for the show. I guess he doesn't want to say that now because it makes him look bad. This is a no win situation for him. So, basically what I have learned is that the ad revenue will decide everything but the Murdocks are willing to take a hit for a while as well.

BlueThunder



Joined: Mon Jun 6th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 2171
Status: 
Offline
Yeah, money trumps ratings, but this will blow over in a couple of weeks. When it does, he'll get other sponsors. I certainly hope it does because I truly like Tucker. He's not a shill for the GOP or Trump. He's truly hard hitting and I love how he totally smashes goofy libs. I certainly do not want people on the far left deciding who I can watch and who I can't watch.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48748
Status: 
Offline
BlueThunder wrote: He's not a shill for the GOP or Trump.
You're adorables.

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6857
Status: 
Offline
The troubles with ads are not new for Carlson.  It has been going on for months now.  I remember him a decade ago and he was a completely different person.  
Basically, anyone could be on at 8 pm on FNC and still get big ratings.  That idiot lady judge would get the same exact ratings.  

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6857
Status: 
Offline
Of course, ad rev isn't the only source of income for Fox News. More income comes from cable subscribers. So, that really helps them. However, the younger generation is cutting the cord, at least much more than my generation (I won't myself) and the market is responding with some level of customization. If this takes hold and accelerates that could pose big trouble for FNC given their difficulties attracting younger viewers. Some thought MSNBC had the same issue until more was learned on how the younger set is streaming that channel. Interesting stuff.

Until the last few years, I always thought that FNC clearly represented traditional conservatives and that was a voice that was needed. Now, with a couple of exceptions, they have become a shill for Trump. Even Hannity was all over Bush about the deficit. Trump? What deficit? A house organ now. Nothing more.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48748
Status: 
Offline
Ultimark wrote: Of course, ad rev isn't the only source of income for Fox News. More income comes from cable subscribers. So, that really helps them. However, the younger generation is cutting the cord, at least much more than my generation (I won't myself) and the market is responding with some level of customization. If this takes hold and accelerates that could pose big trouble for FNC given their difficulties attracting younger viewers. Some thought MSNBC had the same issue until more was learned on how the younger set is streaming that channel. Interesting stuff.

Until the last few years, I always thought that FNC clearly represented traditional conservatives and that was a voice that was needed. Now, with a couple of exceptions, they have become a shill for Trump. Even Hannity was all over Bush about the deficit. Trump? What deficit? A house organ now. Nothing more.

The funny thing is, if you go on Fox's Facebook page it's nothing but a long stream of angry rants from Trump supporters who don't think Fox News is pro-Trump enough.

Quattro

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3868
Status: 
Offline
Our country is so screwed



UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems