In this lengthy and thought provoking piece, Tucker Carlson has plenty of criticism for both sides. How many major
pundits can easily criticize his own party when he feels they have it coming? you can count them on one hand.

i’m not sure i agree with all of it, but it’s balanced and thoughtful. way less blindly partisan than 99% of what’s out there.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-mitt-romney-supports-the-status-quo-but-for-everyone-else-its-infuriating

To the people here who often talk about the ills of income inequality, you might be surprised to see that Carlson is firmly on your side.

Balanced opinion from Fox News ?! Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim,
If I had posted that you and Detbuch would be off the rails.
After all people with money deserve it.

Balanced opinion from Fox News ?! Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe you could have someone read it to you before you deride it. You will never find anything that balanced on any other network. Never, not ever. Nor from anyone else at Fox, now that Krauthammer is gone.

Jim,
If I had posted that you and Detbuch would be off the rails.
After all people with money deserve it.

I'm occasionally wrong, I'm not a hypocrite. I have said here many many times that (1) I like Tucker Carlson, and that (2) he criticizes republicans all the time.

So you couldn't just say it's a balanced and thoughtful and serious piece, you had to use iy as a club against me and detbuch. Whatever.

"After all people with money deserve it"

I think that's usually true, not in the case of thieves, not even in the case of those who legally exploit others, though I think that's rare (not rare enough).

I am starting to reconsider whether dividends and capital gains should be taxed SO MUCH lower than ordinary income. I think it should be lower because of the risk, but it should probably start being more progressive. Anyone who gets capital gains or dividends in excess of 5 million a year, should not be paying a lower effective rate than a couple making 100k. At least, not a lower effective rate on the top end of their earnings.


Pete, how come you couldn't just say "that was a fair and thoughtful and intellectually serious article"? Would that have killed you?

And here, the Huffington Post responds by saying that Carlson...wait for it...attacked women, by blaming them for men's decline.

Carlson did no such thing. Carlson said that when men's wages decrease drastically, those men have a harder time finding women who want to marry them. When I took sociology at UCONN, we studied this exact fact. and it was presented to me, by a liberal sociology professor (there are no conservatives in that field) as fact.

Another smear.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/tucker-carlson-blames-high-earning-092354422.html

Because, That was not my thought
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because, That was not my thought
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you rad that, and your conclusion was, "Jim and detbuch are hypocrites". you hd no thoughts on the subjects he discussed?

I thought it was awesome, I think he nailed a lot of what keeps us from being what we should be, and for damn sure, it was a great example of why, on the rare occasions when I watch political TV, I watch him or Brett Baier, not much else, except for comic relief.

Who else is that comfortable criticizing both sides, calling out both sides for the BS they engage in? Who on TV does that? Does anyone else do that?

So you rad that, and your conclusion was, "Jim and detbuch are hypocrites". you hd no thoughts on the subjects he discussed?

I thought it was awesome, I think he nailed a lot of what keeps us from being what we should be, and for damn sure, it was a great example of why, on the rare occasions when I watch political TV, I watch him or Brett Baier, not much else, except for comic relief.

Who else is that comfortable criticizing both sides, calling out both sides for the BS they engage in? Who on TV does that? Does anyone else do that?
No, my conclusion was that you would go off the rails if I had posted that and get lost in his comment on income inequality, ignoring all the rest.
But I was wrong, all I had to do was comment for you to go off the rails.

No, my conclusion was that you would go off the rails if I had posted that and get lost in his comment on income inequality, ignoring all the rest.
But I was wrong, all I had to do was comment for you to go off the rails.

"my conclusion was that you would go off the rails if I had posted that "

Well you'd be wrong. I have praised and criticized both sides, many times.

Your comment was a baseless personal attack. Detbuch and I are less purely ideological than most here.

Jim,
If I had posted that you and Detbuch would be off the rails.
After all people with money deserve it.

I ride some pretty good rails. Every now and then, I fall off, but get back on again fairly quickly. I don't think my rails are hidden, obscure pathways. And when you get on, you can ride steadily toward a certain destination.

Your rails . . . well, they seem complicated. Uncertain. A bit of a wavering ride. I did ride similar ones long ago. They did not appear dangerous, nor particularly uncomfortable. They just seemed to be always passing through a fog with glimpses of pleasant or unpleasant things. But never stopping to get a clear and steady sight of anything. But I finally managed to get off the wandering path and onto a good connection . Good luck with wherever your rails lead you.