Personally, I do like the longer evenings better, but I HATE the transition to waking up an hour earlier. I could handle a few more dark mornings. Those two or so weeks after this change suck, though. I feel like I’m in a daze.
That's so strange. It's never bothered me. Not even the first day.
Well when you’ve got a toddler that likes to wake up at 5:45 am...lol
Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..
And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.
And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.
French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..
And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.
And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.
French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".
The entire 'good rapist' and 'bad rapist' argument is mind boggling and disgusting.
Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..
And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.
And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.
French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".
You're right that he appears to be defining it as whether it gets contemporaneous outrage. I agree that's not the bar. But I also think it's kind of silly that fully half of the population (women) were 'hurt' by his comments. I asked my wife what she thought and she wasn't hurt, she just thinks he's an idiot. I think that both things are true, Tucker is an idiot, but the daily outrage machine just further divides the country.
Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..
And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.
And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.
French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".
You're right that he appears to be defining it as whether it gets contemporaneous outrage. I agree that's not the bar. But I also think it's kind of silly that fully half of the population (women) were 'hurt' by his comments. I asked my wife what she thought and she wasn't hurt, she just thinks he's an idiot. I think that both things are true, Tucker is an idiot, but the daily outrage machine just further divides the country.
I think we have to own a failure to hold people to account at the time they made these statements, but rather than spending inordinate time and resources to find 'dirt' from their pasts, just commit to holding present and future makers of ugly comments to account, and make damn sure people are aware of this new reality. It's always going to read as inauthentic to the accused if we're always playing the "let's find skeletons in their closets" game, but it's not like there isn't a regular inflow of ugly words from characters like this. Better to get them on current grievances.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..
And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.
And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.
French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".
You're right that he appears to be defining it as whether it gets contemporaneous outrage. I agree that's not the bar. But I also think it's kind of silly that fully half of the population (women) were 'hurt' by his comments. I asked my wife what she thought and she wasn't hurt, she just thinks he's an idiot. I think that both things are true, Tucker is an idiot, but the daily outrage machine just further divides the country.
Who said 50%, and who is your wife that she gets to be arbiter of whether others are “hurt” or not? Because she’s a woman, she gets to speak for other women? Maybe people - men and women - who were sexually assaulted may feel differently.
In any case, the issue of “hurt” is a red herring. Both you and Frank bring it up to minimize the issue. It seems to me that any reasonable person should be offended by the minimization of the importance of the sexual abuse of children.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..
And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.
And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.
French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".
You're right that he appears to be defining it as whether it gets contemporaneous outrage. I agree that's not the bar. But I also think it's kind of silly that fully half of the population (women) were 'hurt' by his comments. I asked my wife what she thought and she wasn't hurt, she just thinks he's an idiot. I think that both things are true, Tucker is an idiot, but the daily outrage machine just further divides the country.
Who said 50%, and who is your wife that she gets to be arbiter of whether others are “hurt” or not? Because she’s a woman, she gets to speak for other women? Maybe people - men and women - who were sexually assaulted may feel differently.
In any case, the issue of “hurt” is a red herring. Both you and Frank bring it up to minimize the issue. It seems to me that any reasonable person should be offended by the minimization of the importance of the sexual abuse of children.
No she doesn't speak for everyone, and neither does the twitter mob. And that really is my point. The outrage culture is out of control now and it is counter-productive in my opinion. I agree with Benjs as far as not going overboard with comments of the past. I think he gets it right. And to be clear, I don't think French is correct across the board, by any means. As I said in my lead, it's a counterpoint that I think is worth discussing.
look for an SNL bit on "saving time with fewer words" with Alec Baldwin this coming saturday.
Tim-Ap-ple. Three syllables. Tim-Cook. Two syllables.
A master of efficiency.
I said the same exact thing to a co worker. it makes zero sense. he now is saying he said the word "cook" in between Tim and Apple but it was less pronounced. He's such a fucking idiot.
Who is the bigger "fucking idiot"? The "president " Or His advisers, believers, supporters, and voters?
i knew this question was coming. it's as predictable these days as "....all the way to impeachment". LOL
You forgot, “follow the money, from Russia with love and a PTape,” as I prefer not to be taken out of context. LOL.
well, to be fair, I did have the preceding "....", to indicate it wasn't the full quote. LOL
look for an SNL bit on "saving time with fewer words" with Alec Baldwin this coming saturday.
Tim-Ap-ple. Three syllables. Tim-Cook. Two syllables.
A master of efficiency.
I said the same exact thing to a co worker. it makes zero sense. he now is saying he said the word "cook" in between Tim and Apple but it was less pronounced. He's such a fucking idiot.
Who is the bigger "fucking idiot"? The "president " Or His advisers, believers, supporters, and voters?
i knew this question was coming. it's as predictable these days as "....all the way to impeachment". LOL
You forgot, “follow the money, from Russia with love and a PTape,” as I prefer not to be taken out of context. LOL.
well, to be fair, I did have the preceding "....", to indicate it wasn't the full quote. LOL
Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..
And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.
And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.
French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".
You're right that he appears to be defining it as whether it gets contemporaneous outrage. I agree that's not the bar. But I also think it's kind of silly that fully half of the population (women) were 'hurt' by his comments. I asked my wife what she thought and she wasn't hurt, she just thinks he's an idiot. I think that both things are true, Tucker is an idiot, but the daily outrage machine just further divides the country.
Who said 50%, and who is your wife that she gets to be arbiter of whether others are “hurt” or not? Because she’s a woman, she gets to speak for other women? Maybe people - men and women - who were sexually assaulted may feel differently.
In any case, the issue of “hurt” is a red herring. Both you and Frank bring it up to minimize the issue. It seems to me that any reasonable person should be offended by the minimization of the importance of the sexual abuse of children.
No she doesn't speak for everyone, and neither does the twitter mob. And that really is my point. The outrage culture is out of control now and it is counter-productive in my opinion. I agree with Benjs as far as not going overboard with comments of the past. I think he gets it right. And to be clear, I don't think French is correct across the board, by any means. As I said in my lead, it's a counterpoint that I think is worth discussing.
I agree the issue is worth discussing, or I wouldn't be discussing it, but I don't see where you see the value in French's article specifically. His points basically boil down to (1) it was a long time ago, and (2) the comments aren't really all that bad anyway. The first point is nothing that hasn't already been made by a 100 conservative writers before him, and the second is repellent. Where's the new thought there? So the "twitter mob" doesn't speak for everybody - that's nothing new, either.
Honestly, I think the only fair criticism of the Carlson episode is to ask why they bothered to go back 15 or 20 years to find those comments when he makes comments like that today.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
So - Tucker hasn't apologized for any of his comments right?
Now - this occurred on a show that is literally meant to shock. I'm not surprised by the words on that type of show. And many times it's for a laugh...not sure how it was portrayed on the show etc.
But to not come out and apologize. That says he thinks nothing is wrong at all. And while it may not be as big a deal as the Outrage Machine is trying to make it...it seems to me that you should address it and own what you said, provide context and I'm sure even apologize for some if not all of it. He's not doing any of that...so it appears like he is standing behind his words completely, meaning it's still how he thinks. And that is a big problem.
So - Tucker hasn't apologized for any of his comments right?
Now - this occurred on a show that is literally meant to shock. I'm not surprised by the words on that type of show. And many times it's for a laugh...not sure how it was portrayed on the show etc.
But to not come out and apologize. That says he thinks nothing is wrong at all. And while it may not be as big a deal as the Outrage Machine is trying to make it...it seems to me that you should address it and own what you said, provide context and I'm sure even apologize for some if not all of it. He's not doing any of that...so it appears like he is standing behind his words completely, meaning it's still how he thinks. And that is a big problem.
yes, I watched his retort, and he stated nothing about his position on the matters (except to say he said something "naughty"), just how he and fox won't bend to "the mob".
His defense is indefensible. The least he could have said was, "I said dumb things, I was on poor man's Howard Stern, so I played along. These weren't serious statements". But he never addressed the idiocy of his words.
Overblown internet outrage is really an issue, especially the degree to which legitimate news covers it.
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
But... and I think it was French's article that said this, can't recall... we can't just defend people who we agree with politically. You can's say Kevin Hart is okay because his body of work we like, but this person is a conservative so let's paint him with the brush. That's where the hypocrisy comes into play.
Overblown internet outrage is really an issue, especially the degree to which legitimate news covers it.
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
But... and I think it was French's article that said this, can't recall... we can't just defend people who we agree with politically. You can's say Kevin Hart is okay because his body of work we like, but this person is a conservative so let's paint him with the brush. That's where the hypocrisy comes into play.
Has French brought this up before? Or only for Tucker? Because this has been happening for years.
And I think Hart deserved the criticism, and like Tucker, offered no real apology.
Overblown internet outrage is really an issue, especially the degree to which legitimate news covers it.
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
But... and I think it was French's article that said this, can't recall... we can't just defend people who we agree with politically. You can's say Kevin Hart is okay because his body of work we like, but this person is a conservative so let's paint him with the brush. That's where the hypocrisy comes into play.
Has French brought this up before? Or only for Tucker? Because this has been happening for years.
And I think Hart deserved the criticism, and like Tucker, offered no real apology.
I agree, with both of your points. I didn’t defend Hart’s comments, and actually I have no idea where he stands politically anyway.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Overblown internet outrage is really an issue, especially the degree to which legitimate news covers it.
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
But... and I think it was French's article that said this, can't recall... we can't just defend people who we agree with politically. You can's say Kevin Hart is okay because his body of work we like, but this person is a conservative so let's paint him with the brush. That's where the hypocrisy comes into play.
Has French brought this up before? Or only for Tucker? Because this has been happening for years.
And I think Hart deserved the criticism, and like Tucker, offered no real apology.
I was just using him as an example, but I know what you mean. I mean hell, Seth McFarland has had some Family Guy episodes that would not go over very well if they came out today. As far as French, I believe he has written about similar things before. He's very intellectually consistent, no matter if you agree with him or not. He does not reflexively defend or condemn people based on political affiliation. I only agree with him 10% of the time, but I respect him.
Overblown internet outrage is really an issue, especially the degree to which legitimate news covers it.
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
But... and I think it was French's article that said this, can't recall... we can't just defend people who we agree with politically. You can's say Kevin Hart is okay because his body of work we like, but this person is a conservative so let's paint him with the brush. That's where the hypocrisy comes into play.
When the right cleans up their own house, I’ll get on board with holding dems/libs accountable. Until then, I’ll laugh at Family Guy episodes and Pete Davidson skits.
But I’m also starting to see a campaign theme emerge here, we repubs are calling for civility, those evil dems and libs won’t hold their own to account and want to eliminate free speech. Sorry, but the repub faux outrage machine has been in high gear since 1992 with Clinton’s “Come Back Kid” surprise win.
Overblown internet outrage is really an issue, especially the degree to which legitimate news covers it.
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
But... and I think it was French's article that said this, can't recall... we can't just defend people who we agree with politically. You can's say Kevin Hart is okay because his body of work we like, but this person is a conservative so let's paint him with the brush. That's where the hypocrisy comes into play.
When the right cleans up their own house, I’ll get on board with holding dems/libs accountable. Until then, I’ll laugh at Family Guy episodes and Pete Davidson skits.
But I’m also starting to see a campaign theme emerge here, we repubs are calling for civility, those evil dems and libs won’t hold their own to account and want to eliminate free speech. Sorry, but the repub faux outrage machine has been in high gear since 1992 with Clinton’s “Come Back Kid” surprise win.
I think you can hold EVERYONE accountable for their actions/words regardless of political affiliation.
I simply cannot understand how not ONE of the press corps called Sanders on her "ripping babies from their wombs" comments. All they wanted to know was if Trump thought dems were anti-semites. jesus.
Overblown internet outrage is really an issue, especially the degree to which legitimate news covers it.
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
But... and I think it was French's article that said this, can't recall... we can't just defend people who we agree with politically. You can's say Kevin Hart is okay because his body of work we like, but this person is a conservative so let's paint him with the brush. That's where the hypocrisy comes into play.
When the right cleans up their own house, I’ll get on board with holding dems/libs accountable. Until then, I’ll laugh at Family Guy episodes and Pete Davidson skits.
But I’m also starting to see a campaign theme emerge here, we repubs are calling for civility, those evil dems and libs won’t hold their own to account and want to eliminate free speech. Sorry, but the repub faux outrage machine has been in high gear since 1992 with Clinton’s “Come Back Kid” surprise win.
I think you can hold EVERYONE accountable for their actions/words regardless of political affiliation.
I simply cannot understand how not ONE of the press corps called Sanders on her "ripping babies from their wombs" comments. All they wanted to know was if Trump thought dems were anti-semites. jesus.
Agreed. There are some Democrats and/or liberals that need to STFU. And I'm not talking about Seth or Bill Maher. Comedians get some creative license in my book, because once we stop laughing, we're really screwed. But there are plenty of liberals who have said some dumb shit recently and my response is not for the Republicans to clean their house up firsst.
Overblown internet outrage is really an issue, especially the degree to which legitimate news covers it.
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
But... and I think it was French's article that said this, can't recall... we can't just defend people who we agree with politically. You can's say Kevin Hart is okay because his body of work we like, but this person is a conservative so let's paint him with the brush. That's where the hypocrisy comes into play.
When the right cleans up their own house, I’ll get on board with holding dems/libs accountable. Until then, I’ll laugh at Family Guy episodes and Pete Davidson skits.
But I’m also starting to see a campaign theme emerge here, we repubs are calling for civility, those evil dems and libs won’t hold their own to account and want to eliminate free speech. Sorry, but the repub faux outrage machine has been in high gear since 1992 with Clinton’s “Come Back Kid” surprise win.
I think you can hold EVERYONE accountable for their actions/words regardless of political affiliation.
I simply cannot understand how not ONE of the press corps called Sanders on her "ripping babies from their wombs" comments. All they wanted to know was if Trump thought dems were anti-semites. jesus.
You (you in the general sense) can but you can also hold your own accountable and lead by example. If you want others to take the high road, you first must take the high road. But we know the repubs will never do that. Faux News' business model proves that point (read the New Yorker article).
Overblown internet outrage is really an issue, especially the degree to which legitimate news covers it.
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
But... and I think it was French's article that said this, can't recall... we can't just defend people who we agree with politically. You can's say Kevin Hart is okay because his body of work we like, but this person is a conservative so let's paint him with the brush. That's where the hypocrisy comes into play.
When the right cleans up their own house, I’ll get on board with holding dems/libs accountable. Until then, I’ll laugh at Family Guy episodes and Pete Davidson skits.
But I’m also starting to see a campaign theme emerge here, we repubs are calling for civility, those evil dems and libs won’t hold their own to account and want to eliminate free speech. Sorry, but the repub faux outrage machine has been in high gear since 1992 with Clinton’s “Come Back Kid” surprise win.
I think you can hold EVERYONE accountable for their actions/words regardless of political affiliation.
I simply cannot understand how not ONE of the press corps called Sanders on her "ripping babies from their wombs" comments. All they wanted to know was if Trump thought dems were anti-semites. jesus.
You (you in the general sense) can but you can also hold your own accountable and lead by example. If you want others to take the high road, you first must take the high road. But we know the repubs will never do that. Faux News' business model proves that point (read the New Yorker article).
Then we should hold accountable the people on "our team" so that we can maintain a shred of integrity.
Overblown internet outrage is really an issue, especially the degree to which legitimate news covers it.
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
But... and I think it was French's article that said this, can't recall... we can't just defend people who we agree with politically. You can's say Kevin Hart is okay because his body of work we like, but this person is a conservative so let's paint him with the brush. That's where the hypocrisy comes into play.
When the right cleans up their own house, I’ll get on board with holding dems/libs accountable. Until then, I’ll laugh at Family Guy episodes and Pete Davidson skits.
But I’m also starting to see a campaign theme emerge here, we repubs are calling for civility, those evil dems and libs won’t hold their own to account and want to eliminate free speech. Sorry, but the repub faux outrage machine has been in high gear since 1992 with Clinton’s “Come Back Kid” surprise win.
I think you can hold EVERYONE accountable for their actions/words regardless of political affiliation.
I simply cannot understand how not ONE of the press corps called Sanders on her "ripping babies from their wombs" comments. All they wanted to know was if Trump thought dems were anti-semites. jesus.
You (you in the general sense) can but you can also hold your own accountable and lead by example. If you want others to take the high road, you first must take the high road. But we know the repubs will never do that. Faux News' business model proves that point (read the New Yorker article).
Then we should hold accountable the people on "our team" so that we can maintain a shred of integrity.
I think “our side” is held to a much higher standard and the bulk of the slights or faux outrage fodder is Hollywood or comedic production and not sold in an echo chamber of a threat to our freedoms. If Tucker Carlson won’t apologize or be punished by Faux News, maybe Al Fraken should be re-instated?
Comments
And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.
French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
In any case, the issue of “hurt” is a red herring. Both you and Frank bring it up to minimize the issue. It seems to me that any reasonable person should be offended by the minimization of the importance of the sexual abuse of children.
And to be clear, I don't think French is correct across the board, by any means. As I said in my lead, it's a counterpoint that I think is worth discussing.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I agree the issue is worth discussing, or I wouldn't be discussing it, but I don't see where you see the value in French's article specifically. His points basically boil down to (1) it was a long time ago, and (2) the comments aren't really all that bad anyway. The first point is nothing that hasn't already been made by a 100 conservative writers before him, and the second is repellent. Where's the new thought there? So the "twitter mob" doesn't speak for everybody - that's nothing new, either.
Honestly, I think the only fair criticism of the Carlson episode is to ask why they bothered to go back 15 or 20 years to find those comments when he makes comments like that today.
Now - this occurred on a show that is literally meant to shock. I'm not surprised by the words on that type of show. And many times it's for a laugh...not sure how it was portrayed on the show etc.
But to not come out and apologize. That says he thinks nothing is wrong at all. And while it may not be as big a deal as the Outrage Machine is trying to make it...it seems to me that you should address it and own what you said, provide context and I'm sure even apologize for some if not all of it. He's not doing any of that...so it appears like he is standing behind his words completely, meaning it's still how he thinks. And that is a big problem.
www.headstonesband.com
https://apple.news/ACc2QqXaUS8G0oIIzv_GoRA
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But Tucker Carlson isn't the person to take the stand for. He deserves nobody's defense. There are many better examples in the past few years.
And I think Hart deserved the criticism, and like Tucker, offered no real apology.
But I’m also starting to see a campaign theme emerge here, we repubs are calling for civility, those evil dems and libs won’t hold their own to account and want to eliminate free speech. Sorry, but the repub faux outrage machine has been in high gear since 1992 with Clinton’s “Come Back Kid” surprise win.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I simply cannot understand how not ONE of the press corps called Sanders on her "ripping babies from their wombs" comments. All they wanted to know was if Trump thought dems were anti-semites. jesus.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
LOL.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©