Tucker Carlson hits a new low

Maybe go outside and meet a black person. Hear what they have to say about your bullshit and actually listen...instead of just throwing up your copypasta shield which you've become comfortable with online. You won't ..but you should ...it would probably help you.
He would beat me up, proving that I am mistaken about the high black crime rate.
 
He would beat me up, proving that I am mistaken about the high black crime rate.
That's your position be ause of your racist bias.

I'd say you should question why you believe that as a chance to challenge your own beliefs, but I know it will just reinforce them. Mostly because you can't see outside of your own computer.
 
That's your position be ause of your racist bias.

I'd say you should question why you believe that as a chance to challenge your own beliefs, but I know it will just reinforce them. Mostly because you can't see outside of your own computer.
Yes he has a problem reading outside his beliefs...and even when facts point out his flawed use of discredited papers...as per the links

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/12...-flawed-and-based-on-racist-ideas-and-agenda/

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08...-flawed-and-based-on-racist-ideas-and-agenda/
 
I find it hard to believe that all of y'all on the Left are actually watching Tucker Carlson.
Salon must have done a hit piece, or maybe Rolling Stone.
That about their speed.
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).
 
I find it hard to believe that all of y'all on the Left are actually watching Tucker Carlson.
Salon must have done a hit piece, or maybe Rolling Stone.
That about their speed.
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).
There are things called clips posted on social media.
...you may check that out sometime
 
I find it hard to believe that all of y'all on the Left are actually watching Tucker Carlson.
Salon must have done a hit piece, or maybe Rolling Stone.
That about their speed.
lol You're the guy with the American "Thinker" and PJ Media links.
 
No one does, to the extent of being able to formulate any beneficial eugenics policy.
There is plenty of evidence that low intelligence and crime run in families. Those who continue to maintain that social welfare reform and social welfare spending can turn stupid criminals into intelligent law abiding people cannot explain the disappointments pertaining to the civil rights legislation and the war on poverty.
 
There is plenty of evidence that low intelligence and crime run in families. Those who continue to maintain that social welfare reform and social welfare spending can turn stupid criminals into intelligent law abiding people cannot explain the disappointments pertaining to the civil rights legislation and the war on poverty.
Would you go back to the sterilization policies American states had before WWII? Nobody else would.
 
Would you go back to the sterilization policies American states had before WWII? Nobody else would.
I am confident that a lot of people would. I am opposed to compulsory sterilization. I would like to make it a requirement for going on welfare. Those who did not want to be sterilized could get a job. There are jobs for those people. They are the jobs illegal Hispanic immigrants, most of whom cannot speak English, risk their lives for.
 
That's not much of a difference.
It would have the same beneficial results. I say after Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

Right now those with IQ's below 100 are more prolific than those with IQ's above 100. While this is happening computer technology and automation are eliminating jobs that can be learned by those with IQ's below 100. If current trends continue, a growing percentage of people will be congenitally incapable of doing anything useful for a living.
 
There are limits to free speech. This guy continues to test them. I mean, spouting off this kind of hate speech in private or to a small audience is one thing, but to a national audience? Not okay, and while I am not for curbing free speech, I am ALL IN FAVOR of de-platforming him, booting him off the national airways, marginalizing them like they deserve, or at least taking away the ability people like this to spread this kind of hate on a national scale.
And lets be clear, this is NOT censorship, but rather, de-platforming; let him speak, but not to a wide national audience on a national news network.
You are for curbing free speech. You want him censored and silenced - that is curbing his free speech to say what he wants and our free speech rights to hear what he has to say.

You say you're not for something, and then advocate for that exact thing and then just assert that the thing you are advocating for isn't the thing you don't want it to be.
 
He's saying that freedom of speech is not absolute. The courts have affirmed that.
 
Don't know about that. See the Flynn effect.
The Flynn Effect has not been duplicated by the improvements in academic performance one would expect if intelligence was really increasing. I attribute the Flynn Effect to improvements in IQ testing. It has always been difficult to measure the ability to learn new material quickly and well, rather than what has been learned. Early tests assumed that intelligent people would have accumulated a lot of general knowledge. That is what they emphasized testing. Because average years spent in school have increased we can expect scores to have increased on the old IQ tests, and they have.

New tests have been developed that require no knowledge of reading, no knowledge of mathematics, and no knowledge of English. A space alien could take one of those tests. I am confident that the space alien would score very well.
 
It's not a matter of nuance. It's institutional. There is a real American left, and it is to the left of the Democrats and in some circumstances hostile to them. That is an important distinction. It is essential not to confuse or conflate the two.
Words mean what people say they mean. I define a leftist as one who believes that police forces should be defunded or even abolished, who pretends that the races are intrinsically equal, or at least comparable, and who thinks that the writings of Charles Murray and Professor J. Philippe Rushton should be suppressed. A lot of Democrats believe that.
 
Words mean what people say they mean. I define a leftist as one who believes that police forces should be defunded or even abolished, who pretends that the races are intrinsically equal, or at least comparable, and who thinks that the writings of Charles Murray and Professor J. Philippe Rushton should be suppressed. A lot of Democrats believe that.
I say that JohnEngelman means dipshit and so it does.
 
Back
Top