Huh? Does he not understand the story? Does he really believe that a criminal act is some kind of heroic thing to stop protestors? Being pro-nuke doesn’t explain this. He’s anti-protest?
Or is it something like this “logic”:
A. “Rainbow” means gay. Or maybe wussie. Not good, somehow.
B. “Warrior” means they were declaring war. On … on…
C. On CIVILIZATION!
D. They had to be destroyed! They were insurgents!!!
Agh.
Maybe PBS will cut him loose. If they want a right-wing show, give an experienced troublemaker like Pat Buchanan or George Will (who hates PBS. heh.) one. Carlson is apparently too callow & shallow to be worth 30 minutes of state-sponsored airtime.
Carlson’s got a bit of a caustic sense of humor and he’s not somebody I’d usually put in the batshit crazy category of conservative. My guess was that he was amusing himself with a little bit of trollery.
On a side note, how desperate is MSNBC these days? Hardball is one of the best news analysis shows around, but after that they ain’t got nuthin’. They go thru programs like nobody’s business. Just can’t seem to get it right. From what I’ve seen of this new TC show, I’ll give it about 3 months.
I haven’t seen his new show, but I’ve used the same argument for support of France in the (seemingly) same tongue-in-cheek manner.
If it was said in the same manner I do, it was a joke. Call it giving The Needle[sup]TM[/sup] to the French. Not really sure what’s being pitted other than someone just being conservative.
I don’t know - I think the new show is passably good. I rather like Rachel Maddow. She presents a very good face for the left, and she comes across as thoughtful and sincere. And smart. Step back for a second and think about it - isn’t this the kind of debate show that’s light years ahead of Crossfire, and which solves exactly the problem Jon Stewart has been bitching about? His panel is not a bunch of party hacks yelling party lines and spin at each other. It’s young, intelligent people with political viewpoints trying to make their point of view heard.
And I like the ‘Outsider’ segments. The guy who takes the opposing argument is actually a pretty charismatic guy. They’re fairly funny and witty with each other. And they’ll flip positions and argue from the other side at will. It’s kind of more like a mental tug of war than a real debate about the issues.
And the final ‘cutting room floor’ segment is sometimes funny and I like the producer guy. He’s got a very sarcastic wit himself.
I think Tucker gets a bit of a bad rap because A) the stupid bowtie. He should lose the bowtie. Bowties went out of fashion because they look stupid. You aren’t a maverick, Tucker. Just someone with poor fashion sense. And B) His young appearance just makes him look more like a lightweight. But if you actually listen to him talking, you can tell he’s an intelligent guy who actually given these issues a lot of thought. Compare him to a hack like Novak, for instance. Or Carville.
And I don’t want anyone to think that I side with Carlson on ANYTHING.
But liking France for bombing Greenpeace is, indeed, funny.
Greenpeace makes a point of inserting itself and its people into situations where they could be harmed or killed unless the perpetrator of whatever “vile act” they’re protesting ceases their commission of the act, regardless of the danger to themselves.
Moving a rowboat between a whaler and a whale is idiotic. Yet Greenpeace does it, expecting its tactics to work because no one would possibly do anything to them. They believe that they have taken the position beyond which no one will go, and trust their judgment in that matter to be their armor.
And France slapped them. HARD.
Why do you think those PETA idiots only pour paint on the fur coats of women and effete celebrities? Because they believe that the extremity of their actions precludes more extreme behavior on the part of their targets. Let’s see them try that with Vin Deisel.
If Vin chased the guy down and pounded the crap out of him, that’d be FUNNY.
And French agents affixing mines to the hull of a ship that had declared its intentions to violate a secure area is wise, and FUNNY when it happens to be shrill-betty Greenpeace as the target.
As for the two deaths, that is regrettable, but I can’t see them sitting there trying to explain things to Saint Peter.
“Well, we were aboard a freighter, right? And we were… we announced that we were gonna sail it into a militarily-secured nuclear test site? And we were gonna sit there and then… y’know… dare them to continue? Then, right as we were about to get underway? There was this kaboom?”
Killing people because they announced that they were going to stage a protest is funny? Fuck you. Fuck you in spades. There are no words for what a fucking imbecile you are.
Biffy, I kind of agree with you that it isn’t “funny”, but rather only slightly humorous. What would have been funny would be let them into the area and then go ahead with the test anyway.
That would have put them at the front of the line for a Darwin Award.
Man, France just can’t catch a break. They catch shit for being “cheese eating surrender monkeys” and then, when they finally find a foe who they (probably) won’t have to surrender to, they catch shit for that, too.
