Skip to main content

Tucker Carlson appeared with Joe Scarborough last night on Dan Abrams' MSNBC Live (click thru for video) to discuss Larry Craig's speech. Normally I rarely watch Tucker; he never fails to irritate. But Abrams' program is frequent evening viewing for us, as he directly follows Olbermann, and Olbermann is a must-see (my teenage son loves his show especially}.

Carlson finished the segment by bragging about gay-bashing someone when he was in high school. Tucker relates a story about how he was approached, as a high school student, by a gay guy in a mens' room in Georgetown. Carlson described how he left the room, got a friend, and they proceeded to return to the mens' room and beat the man up.

And then Abrams - MSNBC's feckin' News Director! - and Scarborough and Carlson all had a good chortle about it!

When did committing a hate crime become a amusing anecdote to brag about on a national cable news cast?

Tucker Carlson should be FIRED  by MSNBC ,and Abrams should have to explain why on national tv. One man admits committing a hate crime. The others laugh like it's all good fun and and the victim got what he deserved.

Would the news director be sitting there laughing as some pundit described the fun he had as a kid going to a KKK rally? Would he be giving another news caster the high-five after the fellow described how he broke up a NOW meeting by setting the building on fire? Tucker Carlson admitted on national television that he attacked another man because the man expressed sexual interest in him. Rejecting a would-be suitor is one thing, but leaving and then returning to beat him is a premeditated assault.

Tucker Carlson admits committing a criminal hate crime and his compatriot, Scarborough, and his boss, Abrams are laughing about it like it is both perfectly reasonable and amusing. This is beyond the pale for a news organization.

I had to explain to my son that you do NOT beat up people that may make a pass at you. You say, "No thank you. Please leave me alone." And LEAVE THE ROOM. And you do NOT go back with a friend to harass the person or assault them.

I am disgusted with the performance of all three of these "newsmen". I am especially appalled that Abrams, the News Director, would laugh at this criminal action.

I will no longer watch Tucker Carlson’s program, period. He is a thoughtless, violent, completely self-unaware jerk, apparently, who doesn’t have the intelligence to realize that he committed an assault. (His protestations of his gay-friendliness to the contrary.) He should be fired  immediately.

Someone should explain to Carlson that there are a lot of annoying people in the world: panhandlers, street squeegee guys, folks begging on subway cars, loud teenagers in the street, and people who litter, to name the more harmless.  Because you are annoyed, irritated or even nervous does not give you the right to assault them.

That is the exact opposite of the message MSNBC delivered last night.  

But if Dan Abrams does not acknowledge that he made a mistake, and apologize for giving the impression that Carlson’s actions were appropriate and amusing, the tv get tuned to CNN instead, for good.

If this appalls you as much as it did me, please write a letter or an email to viewerservices@msnbc.con, asking that they immediately fire Tucker Carlson and have Dan Abrams explain why the man has been canned. In my case,if MSNBC will not, they will have permanently lost a long-time viewer who has praised their news coverage in the past - even if it means no more "Countdown".

Sorry, Keith. But these guys' behavior - on your channel -was beyond the pale.

UPDATED: Tucker Carlson, through an MSNBC spokewoman, has emailed a self-defense memo to Media Matters, which broke the story.
 

Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.

   Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.

We all heard what you said last night, Tucker, and this explanation doesn't wash. You were angry because you described being approached and being "bothered" in a public restroom.. You at no time described it as an "assault", or mentioned that you were scared of bodily harm. You said you were "bothered" - and you didn't ask for being "bothered." You never mention being touched. much less attacked, which implies violence. YOU are the one insulting "all those who have fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack", by comparing some guy making a pass at you to actual rape.

The fact that Tucker is now defending himself by describing  this incident as an "assault", and that he is attacking bloggers' comments as "absurd", shows that MSNBC is hearing our feedback. Thank you, fellow Kossacks.

Originally posted to Louise on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:57 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  recommended (25+ / 0-)

    because i agree.  tucker should've been gone a long time ago.

    the fact that he thinks it's acceptable to joke about gay bashing is beyond sick.  

    MSNBC - FIRE TUCKER!!

    When fascism comes to Dkos, it'll be wrapped in TU status.
    TexasKaos.com

    by anna on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:57:09 PM PDT

  •  Hear Hear....... (6+ / 0-)

    That tired piece of walking talking cat vomit has been sucking up airtime for far too long - and something tells me that that adverse of a reaction can only mean one thing - balls have bounced on that chin more than once...........

    "Doesn't everybody want to play hopscotch, bake cookies and watch the McLaughlin Group?" - Lisa Simpson

    by OneCharmingBastard on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:57:26 PM PDT

  •  Creeps (14+ / 0-)

    All of them. OK, women -- I have an idea. What do you say we take over Congress and the airwaves and restore some sanity to America?

    "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

    by JuliaAnn on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:58:39 PM PDT

    •  Excuse me? (6+ / 0-)

      Women are immuned to being jerks?

      May I present Ann Coulter as 'Exhibit A'.

      Besides, if women take over the airwaves, it'll be nothing but Oprah and Tyra and shit like that. NO THANK YOU.

      Impeach President Cheney and his little monkey too!

      by HighSticking on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:20:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well sort of... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JuliaAnn, vcmvo2, bleeding heart

        I've never heard of a woman beating someone up because the other person was hitting on her.  

        Sure there may be a slap if it is an inappropriate remark, but they do not throw the other person's head up against the wall.  

        I would much rather only have Oprah or Tyra to listen to instead of insecure, physical gay-bashers.

        •  I've seen it many times (4+ / 0-)

          but then I was a bouncer for a while. We see everything.

          •  In college, I did also (0+ / 0-)

            When I was a bouncer in college (really crowded college bar, adults under 21 were still allowed to drink legally) I was really surprised the first couple of times I saw women throwing punches (and much worse) at each other. I became immune to all kinds of things pretty quickly, but for me, it was an eye opener at first.

            I still remember my boss saying "Caoimhin, it doesn't matter that they're girls, you still gotta' grab'um just like the guys and throw'um out the back door."

            Come to think of it, most of the women to whom we had to give an exit escort would have kicked the snot out of Tucker Carlson. I have no doubt that the giggling bow-tied little shit needed to get a friend to help him cowardly express his violent homophobic rage.

            sláinte,

            cl

            Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should imposed upon on children.

            by Caoimhin Laochdha on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:47:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Don't go to Long Beach, CA (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fabian

          Some teenagers were just sentenced for this very thing - rightly so.

    •  I don't think so (11+ / 0-)

      Yes please, let's turn the country over to women, you know, the likes of Barbara Cubin, Phyllis Schlaffley, Ann Coulter, Jean Schmidt, Susan Collins, etc., etc...

      On second thought, maybe we should screen for something other than gender.

      It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the intelligent half of the country virulently against him.

      by fizziks on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:27:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hear, hear, Julia Ann. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JuliaAnn

      "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

      by Lying eyes on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:29:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd really like to know if you're (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      keila

      calling all men creeps here. And if you are, could you explain why it's ok to respond to bigotry with more bigotry?

      Serious question because I see it a lot.

      •  Oh heavens (0+ / 0-)

        Guys, chill. I do think women might worry about feeding and clothing children first, and making bombs second. Just a thought I had.

        Think I'm crazy? Tell me why, at every level of government, it is men building things (like roads through wetlands and shopping centers where green space should be) and bombing things (especially other countries), everything else be damned.

        I apologize for offending, but honesty is my game these days. The worst men I know should be run out on a rail, the best men I know shrug their shoulders.

        Except the men of dKos, of course.

        "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

        by JuliaAnn on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:36:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          auapplemac

          I'm a woman, and I don't like comments like that either.  They impugn my father, my male friends, and the many kind and decent guys who do good things in public and in private every day.  And I am mightily irked by the knee-jerk equation of "female" with "child nurturer" and "caretaker to the world."

          I think we really need to squelch this whole idea that "women are more inherently good than men,"  because it doesn't do anyone any good - if anything, it just reinforces tired old stereotypes that have been used to oppress women for centuries.  

          Besides, I have enough trouble just getting my ass to work every day. I don't think I can deal with saving humanity on top of everything else.  

          This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway...Leonard Cohen

          by SingularExistence on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:12:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yup, that's bigotry, all right n/t (0+ / 0-)

          45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

          by dconrad on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:23:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your comment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dconrad

            is totally ironic, given the fact that you uprated surferal's completely bigoted hidden commented above.

            Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

            by DMiller on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:36:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're mistaken, although I can see how (0+ / 0-)

              you came to be. When I uprated those comments, they were not troll rated, but they are hidden as a result of being the descendants of this troll-rated comment.

              If I actually thought surferal's bigoted comment deserved to be seen, I would have uprated the top-level troll-rated comment. But I didn't do that, because I agree with it being troll-rated, and hidden. I have actually argued in the past that it is wrong to belittle Ann Coulter for anything other than her venomous views. Go there and read what I said then, if you think I agree with what surferal wrote above.

              When I uprated those comments, I knew I was not helping to make the parent comment visible, and I avoided rating the parent comment for just that reason. So why did I uprate any of surferal's comments at all?

              Because right here surferal claimed it was intended as a joke, and I felt sorry for him/her if he/she was actually getting troll-rated for a snark that misfired. So I wanted his/her comment to remain hidden, but for him/her to get a little mojo anyway. We could all use a little slack, and a little mojo.

              Someone after me came along and troll-rated the comments that I had uprated. I'm not really sure why people bother to troll rate comments that are in a hidden subthread, since it has no further effect once a parent comment is already hidden, but I guess they want to express their disapproval.

              45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

              by dconrad on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:03:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  They're all bad. Oh, except for you, Bob. (0+ / 0-)

          Men are bad because they build things, like roads and shopping centers. Women are good because they feed and clothe children, which in no way involves roads or shopping centers.

          Of course, no women are ever involved in building anything, and no men ever feed or clothe children.

          The best lack all conviction, while the worst
          Are full of passionate intensity.

          Sweetness and Light

          ‘Babyish’ Barbie under attack from little girls, study shows

          "Of all of the products we asked the children to describe as ‘cool’ or ‘not cool’, Barbie aroused the most complex and violent emotions," said Dr Nairn.

          "The girls we spoke to see Barbie torture as a legitimate play activity, and see the torture as a ‘cool’ activity in contrast to other forms of play with the doll.

          "The types of mutilation are varied and creative, and range from removing the hair to decapitation, burning, breaking and even microwaving."

          Similar attitudes were expressed to Action Man, but at the same time boys expressed feelings of affection and nostalgia to the toy which were totally absent from discussions of Barbie.

          "One might expect a doll to fulfil the function of friend or playmate and for little girls to consider her as a person; a human to whom she might talk," said Dr Nairn.

          "You might even expect her to love her Barbie and expect an imaginary love in return. Instead, girls feel violence and hatred towards their Barbie."

          Then again, that may not be such a bad thing.

          I'm not equating Barbie-bashing with Baghdad-bombing (although Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, and Margaret Thatcher all come to mind as women who enthusiastically supported various bombing campaigns), I'm just submitting this for your perusal.

          45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

          by dconrad on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:30:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm there! n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Turn the Mountain West blue! Support Gary Trauner (WY-AL) for Congress!

      by kainah on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:54:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unbelievable (5+ / 0-)

    I never watch that show, I occasionally grit my teeth through Carlson's show. He's a loathsome little twit, but this is truly beyond all justification.

    This cannot stand. Last straw time - he's done it now. Fire the little punkass twerp.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:00:29 PM PDT

  •  Isn't Abrams Tucker's boss? (10+ / 0-)

    Doubt he will fire him because he is complicit.
    I'm glad that Abrams finally gave himself away in public.
    He is more interested in fluff and tabloids than he is in real news.
    Notice that he came out of the back office to put his mug on tv, to FOLLOW KEITH'S SHOW...

    Nice ego there, Dan.
    Glad you showed your true colors, along with Tucker and Scar.. for all the world to see.

  •  Call 201-583-5000 (23+ / 0-)

    I just did and left a voice mail for Dan Abrams,
    general manager .

    It is his show, and he is one of the people laughing so loudly at Tucker's story about bashing gays.

    MSNBC
    General Manager
    Dan Abrams
    201-583-5000
    dan.abrams@msnbc.com

    Beating up gays isn't funny anymore

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

    by tiponeill on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:02:13 PM PDT

    •  i just tried to call (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Louise

      I just tried to call and the phone just rang and rang, no voice mail message came on. Maybe they turned it off after hours, or were getting too many calls on the voice mail.  Anyway, I agree that if MSNBC does not fire Tucker, it is time to consider launching some kind of protest action or even proceed to a boycott.  I wonder if KO will address this tonight.

  •  "gay rage" or "gay panic" (13+ / 0-)

    This became a version of the "temporary insanity" defense a few years ago, and prosecutors have started exploring its ramifications in recent years.  The basic idea is to argue that an assailant was so hot-blooded over being approached by a gay person that they lose all control and attack, beat and/or kill them.

    Pandagon noted about a year ago that it was cited as a mitigating circumstance in an Alabama sentencing hearing, and there are numerous article about it online.

    It's a bullshit excuse for commiting a hate crime, but it seems to be growing in popularity.

    The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter

    by JR on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:03:41 PM PDT

    •  what? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, trashablanca, JVolvo, jds1978

      tucker apologize for gay bashing?  it's his badge of honour!
      and he took a friend along, h'mmm?  very brave....

    •  So then it would be OK (9+ / 0-)

      for a woman to become enraged after being hit on by a guy she couldn't stand and wanted no part of, and then going out and beating him up or shooting him?

      After all, she might be worried this guy might hit on her again...hell, he even might be married, and wouldn't trying to commit adultery be something he should be beat up for? I mean, there's nothing in the 10 commandments about being gay, but there sure is about adultery...

      •  you would think so, wouldn't you? (0+ / 0-)

        I think the problem is that preconceived biases can be used to mitigate mens rea, but IANAL.

        In any event, it's a patently BS defense.  Tucker needs to get his ass handed to him by his superiors.

        The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter

        by JR on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:14:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  have you ever been stalked? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Louise, auapplemac

        I have a friend who was, she stalked by an ex-boyfriend The guy finally screwed up and was caught and prosecuted, but this went on for almost a year.

        Happens all the time. It would be so much easier if we could just take justice into our own hands, wouldn't it? (snark, sort of)

        "Bart! You're saying butt-kisser like it's a bad thing!" --Homer Simpson

        by o the umanity on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:23:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tough Guy image (7+ / 0-)

    I just have to shake my head at how some of these pundits take any opportunity to pretend to be "tough guys".

    Tucker wanted to have a Bill O'Reilly/G. Gordon Liddy "tough guy" moment and those other idiots were stupid enough to indulge him.

    Just another example of insecure jerks run amok.

    The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous. -Frederick Douglass

    by malharden on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:03:46 PM PDT

  •  Well, if he's to be fired... (4+ / 0-)

    ... then I'd say you'd have to fire Abrams and Scarborough, too. In my mind, you can't very well fire someone for something that they maybe did in high school. However, a case might be made that all of them sitting there and laughing about it while they're all supposedly adults was, at the very least, unprofessional.

    hink

    Please, save the conservative.

    by MrHinkyDink on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:04:32 PM PDT

  •  I've said it b4 - Tucker is such a crass loser (6+ / 0-)

    The longer MSNBC keeps him around, the more I question how serious they are about the business they're in.

  •  Thanks for an important call to action! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tiponeill, annrose
  •  Dude, Tucker is like Elliot Ness - untouchable (10+ / 0-)

    Have you no clue how piss-poor his ratings are?

    Do you not know that he says even more offensive crap against democrats all the time?

    Don't you realize that there is nothing anyone can do to touch Tucker?  

    That he is considered sacred at MSNBC, and even he had a viewing audience of 1, he'd still have a job, because he does G.E.'s dirty work (bashing democrats)?

    He's not paid to get ratings.  He's not paid to be right.  He's paid to bash democrats, and his comments did nothing to change that.

  •  And can you believe (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cathy b, trashablanca, Bridge Master

    That he was on the Ed Schultz show this afternoon saying how he was probably the most pro-gay republican there was given that he was pro gay marriage and equal rights for gays and that it shouldn't matter who anyone has sex with, blah blah blah.  I wonder it Schultz will have something to say about that on tomorrow's show.

  •  Wait, was that Tucker without a bow tie (5+ / 0-)

    last night? I didn't stop to watch but flipped past. Is he doing that now? Is the bow a thing of the past? I always thought the bow tie was really creepy, but seeing him without it seemed even weirder: like some comic book villan out of costume.

  •  You'd think MSNBC would know better ... (6+ / 0-)

    ... than to let this kind of crap on the air after the Imus Affair.

    "It does not require many words to speak the truth." -- Chief Joseph, native American leader (1840-1904)

    by highfive on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:06:46 PM PDT

  •  If he only had a teaspoon of talent. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CalDoc, overturned turtle

    He's a political pacifist playing both sides. As a libritarian he can critisize the dems and repubs(not as much as the right cause he is a George Wallace conservative) he couldn't debate his way out of the closet his gayness stays in.

    I may be dumb but I didn't vote for Bush twice!

    by djericsummers on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:07:49 PM PDT

  •  Tucker Carlson was the one who made (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliMorf, semiot, OneCharmingBastard, Snud

    the pass, and he was the one who got beat up, only he is too ashamed to admit it...

    Chuck Norris Fears Democrats.

    by roboton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:07:55 PM PDT

    •  That's one interpretation that popped... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PoliMorf

      into my head...

      Something about Tucker's body language screamed "lying embellishment/distortion" like he tried to pick something cool to say after being questioned by Joe

      It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
      PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

      by floundericiousMI on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:34:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder if Keith will choose any one, or maybe (7+ / 0-)

    all 3 for Worst Person in the World tonight?

    "I'd like my country back, please. Now!"

    by GrannyOPhilly on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:12:58 PM PDT

  •  Tucker went past the pale.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, annrose, llbear

    greenish...I give him,  oh... 'til Monday, after he apologizes to mankind.  What an asshole.  (By Friday we could have a two-fer if Craig gives it up!!)

    (...fully deserves to have the word spelled out for him.  ... s c u m b a g , too, though that's a step down for something useful like a contraceptive.)

    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. -George Orwell Iraq Moratorium

    by ezdidit on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:16:20 PM PDT

  •  Someone slap this little brat..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, Wharton

    Tucker has been fulminating for quite some time now.
    He must be very well secure in his job for him to mouth off like the baboon that he is. Re-inforce a legitimacy for Matthew Shepard like antagonisms. Its OK....He's just a faggot.
    Tuckers pop ran the Libby Defense Fund. Sterling, right wing credentials. Gay bashing is stil in. I guess this could be one reason why Tucker isn't fired.

  •  Window washers are annoying? (0+ / 0-)
    <puzzled look>

    Primary elections: Vote for the Democrat you prefer; General elections: Vote for the Democrat. There's nothing difficult about this, people.

    by PatsBard on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:18:13 PM PDT

  •  This is reprehensible (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, saucy monkey, Neon Mama

    It is unconscionable to me that MSNBC would condone any statements by its hosts that indicate an approval of violence against anyone, which is against the law, and violence against gay people in particular, which is a hate crime.  I'm sick to my stomach.  

  •  And I always suspected he was gay.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missreporter, DC Scott, Rex Manning

    but you're right, this is grounds for being canned.

  •  Better watch his back now (3+ / 0-)

    That's an awfully dumb thing to go onto national TV and say.  

    There are vigilantes out there who might take this personally - and Tucker does live in DC, I recall.

  •  Tucker Carlson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RevJoe

    is a little twerp.

    My new mantra: "Don't buy shit from China."

    by Radiowalla on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:21:47 PM PDT

  •  Abrams, Scarborough and Carlson (5+ / 0-)

    are the equivalent of three pathetic adolescents who think they are cool.

    You remember the type.  
    Scarborough was the one who made fun of other kids...he sought out the weak ones to verbally assault.  Carlson was the rich dork who attached himself to the other two and did anything they said and said anything that he thought would make him look cool, never getting that the other two were using him and laughing at him.
    And Abrams was the egotistical one who thought he was too good for anyone.

    Obnoxious, bully adolescents who see themselves as entitled is what I think when I see them.
    Abrams will not get rid of Tucker.  He is the programming manager, which tells you all you need to know about the decadence of the network.

    •  Abrams is K.O.'s boss (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rex Manning

      Just sayin'....

      •  Yea, I know..... (0+ / 0-)

        but I am not sure I get your point.....

        A person would have to be an idiot to not keep the only member of his who actually is doing well...but that person still can be an adolescent jerk even if not a business idiot.

        Just saying....

        •  The point iz... (0+ / 0-)

          Some folks posting in this thread are calling for K.O. to name "the three of 'em" as Worst Persons In The World.   And to call Abrams to rant.

          Granted, this was an egregious situation (although I saw that segment yesterday.  I just don't recall it like it's recounted here, cause that would've definitely gotten my attention.) that merits a response to MSNBC/Abrams.   And I am usually foamin' at the mouth at Carlson whenever I watch his drivel, anyway.

          But I still give kudos to Abrams for giving K.O. such wide latitude to actually Tell The Truth every night on MSNBC.  Doesn't seem like any of the other talking heads on MSNBC or NBC have that laissez-faire leeway.

          Just sayin'....

          •  Abrams didn't have any choice (0+ / 0-)

            KO's show was already the best rated program on the network when Abrams was promoted.  NBC wasn't going to let Abrams kill the one news program that was bringing in money.  Unitl recently, Chris Mathews was also doing fairly well in the ratings game.  

          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

            I missed that....

            I never called for KO to do anything so I guess I really didn't understand your response.

            I just think the three of them, Abrams, Scarborough and Carlson, are seriously stuck emotionally in adolescence.  I spent many years teaching middle school. I know the 8th grade mentality when I see it.

          •  We also don't know what KO (0+ / 0-)

            is/will be doing behind the scenes -- while he kept things quiet publicly during the entire Don Imus situation, he had made his feelings known to management several times about what an asshole Imus was. The "nappy-headed hos" remark was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

            Of course with Tucker usually in DC, there's not as much chance for Keith and Tucker to interact...but I'm sure that Keith has his opinions that he won't air in public.

            Here's an idea -- instead of firing Carlson, let's change his show format back to what it used to be, with a strong gay voice (like Rachel Maddow was) from the Left calling Carlson out on his bullshit. His show was actually moderately watchable back then...

            "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -- teacherken

            by Cali Scribe on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:06:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  isnt abrams gay? (0+ / 0-)

      isnt that true, or a rumor i heard?  if so, he's got a bad toupee for a homo

  •  Please call and complain folks (7+ / 0-)

    MSNBC
    General Manager
    Dan Abrams
    201-583-5000
    dan.abrams@msnbc.com

    Don't let them let this slide - this societal apporval of gay bashing has to stop and it won't as long as these good old boys snicker and privately approve.

    The problem is not just Tuckers bragging about gay bashing, but the reaction of Abrams et. all.

    Not surprise or shock or disapproval but loud laughter at the idea of bashing a gay guys head against the stall

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

    by tiponeill on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:24:39 PM PDT

  •  lol tucker...douchy little twerp (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RevJoe, Smallbottle

    thank god for gyms, creatine and 6-oxo...

    I think these fools should wander into the Castro for an evening and try that shit.

    ohhh sweet mystery of life at last i found youuuuu blogroll

    by terrypinder on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:26:53 PM PDT

  •  I hate it when people act lewd. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auapplemac, The Angry Rakkasan, alba

    I have tried to slug various men who have made inappropriate comments to me. Is that a hate crime?

    No.

    A gay man tried to pickup my 14 year old son in Starbucks, yes I did bash him. Some people need bashing.

    Gay bashing is when you go out of your way to find a gay person and do some harm to them.

    Tucker is an idiot.

    •  Sorry but if someone makes a pass at you (7+ / 0-)

      the civilized thing is to say "no thank you".

      Getting your friends to help beat them up IS a crime, yes

      Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

      by tiponeill on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:31:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are many responses (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        saucy monkey, RiaD, North Country Dem

        in between total courtesy and violence depending on the tone of the approach. "Forget it" "Get lost," etc come to mind.

        I've not been solicited by a gay person so I have no idea how I'd react, but I have been irritable now and again with religious pests at my doorstep. I usually decline politely at first and get grumpy if they persist. The same might be appropriate in the case of being cruised. I must say I do find the idea of directly soliciting sex with a total stranger to be really obnoxious behavior. I presume that that is not a common approach.

        Violence as a response is a sign of real issues and as you say is and should be a crime, especially after reflection available after walking away -- way different than a no and a push away at an uncomfortable moment.

        We have only just begun and none too soon.

        by global citizen on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:50:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We're talking about an adult making a pass at a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auapplemac, CeeusBeeus

        child in a public restroom.  You're defending that?

        •  the guy said men have made passes at him (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dianna

          and he has responded with violence...a responsible adult should understand there are other options.

          i understand being protective of one's kid, and pedophiles should not be tolerated. at the same time, it might have been a better response to not hit the guy, and call the police.

          i am human.
          -6.63, -5.95

          by missreporter on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:07:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Louise

          I don't think anyone is defending that. But the proper response is to alert the authorities, not to go around dispensing violence as vigilante justice.

          If you've really got a pedophile on your hands, you want to get that person prosecuted so he/she cannot repeat this behavior.

          The country we carry in our hearts is waiting. -- Bruce Springsteen

          by saucy monkey on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:13:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That there is Republican logic. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Louise, Dianna

          Known as the "False Dilemma."  It's the same logic they used to con Dems into backing the war, so you should be familiar with it.

          Condemning someone for violently assaulting another person is in no way defending any actions of the second person.  It's simply stating that making a pass at someone doesn't deserve violence.

          I finally put in a signature!

          by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:21:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Does "no thank you" stop the (0+ / 0-)

        perp from continuing to make lewd passes or suggestive approaches in public?

        I don't condone violence, but being civil is not the way to scare these people and that's what they need...both men on men and men on women.

        Dubya: often wrong, but never in doubt.

        by auapplemac on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:15:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  defending yourself or your son is fine (5+ / 0-)

      but you don't say no, leave the room, call the cops to report it, then return to the scene with a (presumably) large friend and proceed to bash the guy's head against a wall. That's not right.

      A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

      by dougymi on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:35:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you could see (0+ / 0-)
      what I'm doing to myself, you would want to bash me.

      Hey, settle down lady we get it, your son is cute.

      I Have Come To The Conclusion That Politics Are Too Serious A Matter To Be Left To The Politicians... Charles De Gaulle (1890-1970)

      by 59stevenm on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:50:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  what did the gay man do? (0+ / 0-)

      I first troll-rated this comment when you said "some people need bashing", but then I read your comment again and you said your son was 14 years old.  My question is you said that "a gay man tried to pick up my 14 year old son at a Starbucks."  What did he do to your son that gave you that impression?  Where did this alleged "pickup attempt" take place?

      Or did the "gay man" just talk to your son, and you misinterpreted that as "trying to pick your 14 year old son" up?

      Anyway you said you "bashed" the man and you have some explaining to do.

  •  It says lots about Tucker (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DC Scott, MichiganGirl

    First, if he's such a proud gay basher, why not fight his own battles.  He tries too hard to emulate W, who never fought his own but bashes everyone through proxy.  If Tucker was who wants us to think he is, he blew it.  To run go get help, then bash, he's exactly the coward we know him to be.  He's earned his stripes in the Chicken Hawk Regiment.

    Carlson, Scarborough and even Abrams.  That's disgusting.  Maybe they should have had Justice Clarence Thomas join in; that's about his level, too.

  •  The worst part: Carlson practically bragged (12+ / 0-)

    about this incident. It's one thing if he had struck a contrite tone, claiming that he had since seen that such an action was reprehensible. Instead, he recounted the incident as if he were talking about a practical joke he pulled on someone. And Abrams and Scarborough simply went along, laughing like a group of frat brothers. They reminded me of those three frat brothers who pick up Borat in their motor home. Moronic.

    Baaa! She's unelectable! Baaa! She's GOP-lite! Baaa! She wears army boots! Baaa!

    by John Campanelli on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:29:34 PM PDT

  •  I can't Rec this enough. (3+ / 0-)

    Kick the bigots out.  We need to send a message that this kind of behavior won't be tolerated in a civil society.

  •  Perhpas the victim (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, RiaD

    will decide it is time to press charges. Statute of limitations?

    I've chosen quality-of-life over financial gain so often I'm now completely broke.

    by coldCanadian on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:32:21 PM PDT

  •  Tucker is a Punk (4+ / 0-)

    This kid couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag.

    "Bush always listens to the generals. When he gets tired of listening to them he replaces them. ..." - Wesley Clark.

    by army193 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:33:03 PM PDT

  •  Tucker Carlson (2+ / 0-)

    Carlson finished the segment by bragging about gay-bashing someone when he was in high school. Tucker relates a story about how he was approached, as a high school student, by a gay guy in a mens' room in Georgetown. Carlson described how he left the room, got a friend, and they proceeded to return to the mens' room and beat the man up.

    Come on. I don't believe that. If anything, Tucker probably "serviced" the guy. If we've seen anything with these people, the more they verbally bash gays, the more likey they are to be gay themselves.

    Bush's post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are.

    by William Domingo on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:33:28 PM PDT

  •  Wearing a bow tie (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama, 59stevenm, protectspice

    into a public restroom is as sure a sign you are looking for hot man action. This is common knowledge.

    Bow ties are for tops. Bollo ties are for bottoms. This is well known in tearooms.

    Tucker is such a prick tease.

    "Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." - Oscar Wilde

    by greendem on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:33:34 PM PDT

  •  It is getting so carried away. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidkc, Freedom Loving American

    Attacking people is funny.  Instead of saying it's wrong, people join in.  Another reason if I have kids I am worried to raise them here.  

    •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      missreporter, Dianna, Neon Mama

      However, the entire repuke platform is hypocrisy. .  Look the entire repuke platform is built on corruption, greed, fear and lies. Lying, manipulating, greedy, nut-jobs, will always gravitate to those of similar values, look at o’reily and his monkey/miller.  The repukes that have any brains at all know their entire persona is a fraud. They work for .001-.05 percent of America.  It is clear to most of the people on this site but for some reason the hypocritical idiotic Christian right does not see it.  Frankly stupidity can be the only reason why.  Show me one verse in the New Testament that defends or supports any type of war.  Show me a verse that supports killing.  Show me anything that supports concepts of anything other than love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity, then let me know how this is integrated into the most corrupt, brutal, terror, organization ever created, the republican party since 1980, bushes first presidency.  And I’ll quit making fun of the hypocritical retards.

      We will never forget the crimes and atrocities committed by the Bush administration aided by his republican congress!

      by Freedom Loving American on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:54:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They only got the reader's digest version of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maxalb, Freedom Loving American

        NT from their hypochristian cleric or a talibangelist. If they read it they might have noticed Jesus advocating an end to phony priestly class, rants and flogging against organized religious fraud, ridiculing of hypocrisy of public prayer, warnings not to pray by repeat rote memes, and strong advice to leave govt. to Caesar and separate out worship to God in private in closet.

        Don't ignore the rest, but in Craig's presser speech he "admitted" perjuring himself when he pled guilty. Perjury was why he claimed Clinton must go down. So the old clips show he knew, without a lawyer, that PERJURY is illegal.  "No contest" is what you do when you just want to avoid a trial.

        I suspected Tucker was so hot to keep Vitter "privacy" because he or close friends are ON the same madam's list.  Those folk knew about a service by a woman being prosecuted for interstate prostitution ring - is that RICO?  So all who knew and didn't turn her in became "after the fact" part of the conspiracy. Vitter "told" his wife, an officer of the court, and made her ALSO guilty of conspiracy by not reporting a crime -- not hubby's crime where she is protected --- the madam's crime ring.   Prostitution is illegal. Most places adultery is illegal.  It helps spread deadly diseases folks. Both Senators were in bad position to be blackmailed on votes -- a dangerous situation.  EXPOSE the criminal aspect and send them home.

        This crowd needs big walk in closets for praying.

        De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

        by Neon Mama on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:16:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tucker Carlson beat up Larry Craig? Wow. nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    texas hostage, nycdemocrat

    The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:34:41 PM PDT

  •  I heard, and was appalled by, the talk you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997, Indexer

    refer to! How many years ago was the Jerkissimo Tucker a high school student? Does his comment of reminiscence reflect that period?  I say yes!

    IMO, Tucker's just trying to establish his macho bona fides-- Joe and Dan as well(?)

    Tucker prolly was wearing that f'ing bow tie in HS!
    There usually sumthin' wrong with ANY male whose homophobia is sooo very vocal and violent!!

    It's locker room humor, and cruel, at the least!!

    Aloha .. .. ..

  •  we should organize the way we did around imus (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Louise, cotterperson

    and Ann Coulter with a concrete ask, and mass pressure.

    Currently undecided between Edwards, Obama & Richardson

    by DoGooderLawyer on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:35:40 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, that'd be nice... (0+ / 0-)

      ... but a gay man propositioning a teenage boy in a bathroom doesn't make as sympathetic a target as a team of athletic African American women.

      Imus attacked the team while they did something honorable and well.

      It's not going to be seen as the same thing here.  Even if the gay man's behavior is constitutionally protected.

      But, because his behavior is constitutionally protected, and beating him is not, we should each still write MSNBC and tell them that Carlson's behavior in that instance was obscene, and his relating the story as a funny joke is also obscene.

      Patently offensive.

      •  The man's behavior is not constitutionally (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        choppycursur

        protected - just ask Larry Craig . .

        •  Yeah, that was a complete BS conviction. (0+ / 0-)

          A decent lawyer had better be able to get a client off of disorderly conduct for what Craig did.

          Unless "disorderly conduct" is conduct which a witness thereof makes him think something illegal is about to happen even though nothing illegal is happening in the conduct itself - a completely indefensible standard.

          But, it was a misdemeanor.  

          Oh, but I certainly believe Craig was making a pass at the guy.  I just don't believe that's illegal (just stupid and rude).  If Craig had knocked on the guy's door and said in a loud voice, "Hey, wanna have sex?"  I don't think there's a law against that.

          •  I have to question why people are condoning (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            auapplemac

            the notion of gay men propositioning teenage boys in public rest rooms. Really, folks, that should be illegal ..

            •  Who condoned that? (5+ / 0-)

              What a ludicrous strawman.  How stupid do you have to be to think that condemning Carlson for supposedly beating a man who made a pass at him is in someway condoning a man propositioning a boy (or anyone) in a bathroom?  Logic 101, buddy.

              I finally put in a signature!

              by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:31:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because a number of posters have (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                auapplemac

                made ludicrous comments such as that the man in question was simply exercising his "constitutional rights." Many are quick to condemn Carlson and to chracterize his actions as a "hate crime" while failing to acknowledge that the man was a likely lawbreaker (lewd behavior in a public rest room) who was attempting to commit a reprehensible act.

                Try logic 101 yourself - anybody who has kids would instictively say that it's absurd to be defending the immoral acts of an adult man versus a teenage boy regardless of the boy's improper and excessive response . .

                •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                  A number of people have said that?  Who?  Where?  Citations, please.

                  Try logic 101 yourself - anybody who has kids would instictively say that it's absurd to be defending the immoral acts of an adult man versus a teenage boy regardless of the boy's improper and excessive response

                  Again, I haven't seen anyone make such a claim.  Who here has said it's ok for an adult man to commit immoral acts on a teenage boy?

                  I finally put in a signature!

                  by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:24:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Did Carlson (0+ / 0-)

        make it clear that he was underage and his propositioner was an older gay man?  I understood it as a peer propositioner and peer friend who helped beat him up.

        but even if it was a gay older man and Carlson was underage, he should have refused him, but that still doesn't justify his later assault.  What if women assaulted someone every time they got an unwanted proposition?  Carlson was wrong to joke about the incident, and MSNBC should respond.

        Currently undecided between Edwards, Obama & Richardson

        by DoGooderLawyer on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 05:47:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The guys who killed Matthew Shepherd (8+ / 0-)

    also claimed that th thier actions werer justified by the "gay panic defense"gay panic defense.  

    MSNBC had better be ashamed of themselves.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:36:01 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for this--I saw the story posted (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidkc

    elsewhere earlier; and kinda thought Tucker was stupid--but I didn't make the connection about the seriousness of what he says he did.

    Thank you for the slap on the side of the head!!!

    My letter to MSNBC is going out now!

  •  Good Point. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack

    He is simply a typical repuke.  Look the entire repuke platform is built on corruption, greed, fear and lies. Lying, manipulating, greedy, nut-jobs, will always gravitate to those of similar values, look at loonbaugh(give me more drugs) o’reily and his monkey/miller.  The repukes that have any brains at all know their entire public persona is a fraud. They work for .001-.05 percent of America.  If that was all the people that voted for them even those sleezeballs would have trouble fixing elections.  You noticed I said would have trouble, not impossible.  

    I would like to see the police report Tucker was talking about.

    We will never forget the crimes and atrocities committed by the Bush administration aided by his republican congress!

    by Freedom Loving American on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:36:31 PM PDT

  •  It's beyond understanding... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, WI Dem, maxalb

    ... how the same news network that hired Keith O could also hire Tucker Carlson. I think the bigwigs at MSNBC are of the misguided belief that hiring two people of opposing ideologies equals balance.

    "Family. Religion. Friendship. These are the 3 demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business." --- Mr. Burns

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:36:40 PM PDT

  •  It took two to beat up one person (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Aaa T Tudeattack

    Wow, he must be proud.

    The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now

    by sizzzzlerz on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:37:34 PM PDT

    •  Sure sounds like he's bragging about it. (0+ / 0-)

      If I'd gone and gotten someone else to help me beat up one other person, I'd be so embarrassed I'd never tell! But on national TV? Come on. Tucker's got to go.

      "This chamber reeks of blood." -- Sen George McGovern, 1970

      by cotterperson on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:56:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  BREAKING: Tucker SUCKS!! (3+ / 0-)

     title=

    "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."Hillary Clinton 09/13/2001

    by terrapin station84 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:37:36 PM PDT

  •  I (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiaD, The Angry Rakkasan

    I wrote about this earlier.  Carlson released a response to Media Matters-- you can read it here, at the bottom of the post, fifth update.

    Democrashield, A Safe Place In An Unsafe World

    by Democrashield on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:37:44 PM PDT

  •  I don't believe the story (4+ / 0-)

    Tucker is just too f'cking unappealing for any gay man to approach.

    btw, Joe Lieberman is an ass and anyone who voted for him in 2006 is a jack ass.

    by ejbr on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:40:40 PM PDT

    •  Sure, but that makes his story worse... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiaD, ejbr

      ... because telling it and laughing about it indicates that he believes that reaction was a normal, right and funny thing to do -- beating a gay man who "annoyed" him in a bathroom.

      And it's not funny, normal or right.   It's serious, illegal, and wrong.

  •  Yer All Missing The Point (11+ / 0-)

    You all act like gay men have some right to hit on other men in the men's bathroom. And if a straight guy is offended or angered for being hit on, then he's a homophobe or worse. Give me a break. The men's room isn't a gay bar. Period. Men, straight or gay, have the right to sh*t and piss in peace without being harassed by some randy gay guy. There is nothing wrong with giving a creepy harasser a knuckle sandwich in such an instance. But it is indeed a hate crime to plot a beating on a gay man, as Tucker did.

    Ok, fire away, pc police.

    •  I agree. (13+ / 0-)

      I'm a gay man, but I would defintely feel the urge to crack someone's head open if they hit on me in a public restroom.  There's a time and a place for everything, but getting it on in a public restroom is bullshit, no matter the sexualities or the genders involved.

      No, violence is almost never the answer, and this does seem premeditated (not to mention cowardly) on Tucker's part, in that he left and came back with a buddy to beat the creep down.  Had he hauled off punched the guy when he initially came on to him, that would be a bit different.  So, I understand -- and support -- the calls for Tucker's resignation.

      But please, people, make no mistake. The gay rights movement is NOT, and never has been, about the "right" for closet cases to have sex in public restrooms.  It's about equality, pride, and full rights and responsibilities under the law.

      Shut up and impeach.

      by HarveyMilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:53:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You forgot one. (7+ / 0-)

        ...(o.k., maybe you implied it with that "full rights" thing you wrote)...

        And the right to fall in love and marry a person who'll screw you over emotionally and financially, then leave and divorce you.  Why do only we straight people have to endure such hell?  

        BenGoshi
        ____________________________________________________

        The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:57:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why the hell (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Louise, DMiller, Dianna

        Is it ok to "haul off and punch" a guy for making a pass?  We're not talking a physical groping here (as Tucker is currently trying to spin it, which he didn't say at all at first).  We're talking a verbal pass.  If you assault someone for making a pass at you, you deserve to go to jail.  Period.

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:09:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Context. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          choppycursur, CeeusBeeus

          If you're in a supermarket, and someone flirts with you, that would be quite a different thing than having someone peek into your stall or lean into your urinal, no?

          Shut up and impeach.

          by HarveyMilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:14:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He didn't say it at first (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          auapplemac

          But he didn't go into much detail on Abrams' show. At first he just mentions in passing, "I've been bothered in men's rooms, too," and then goes on to talk about Larry Craig. Then he talks about Clinton, Scarborough goes on about Clinton, they have plenty of stock footage of Clinton ready to go for when Scarborough is talking about Clinton (anybody notice that? do that have that ready at all times in case anyone ever mentions Clinton?), then finally Scarborough draws Tucker out by asking him about it.

          So Tucker apparently wasn't intending to give a full accounting of the incident. I'm not so sure if this "gotcha" of him mentioning an addition detail on the second day of the story is valid.

          We have only his word that the guy grabbed him. But then, we also have only his word that he got a friend, smacked the guy in the head, or that the guy was arrested.

          45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

          by dconrad on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:39:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But your adult enough (0+ / 0-)

        to control your urges, right?

        I mean you don't actually think that violence is an appropriate response to being hit on in the bathroom, do you?

        If someone attempted to restrain you while making you feel all oogie, then you have the right to use violence.

        Just another gay guy's opinion.

        I understand that you may be worried about the climate towards us, that this news blitz of homos touching young boys in the restroom is helping to worsen. It bothers me too, but to the idiots that think gay rights equal sex in public restrooms, fuck em. They're idiots.

        I Have Come To The Conclusion That Politics Are Too Serious A Matter To Be Left To The Politicians... Charles De Gaulle (1890-1970)

        by 59stevenm on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:24:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's context for every situation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          auapplemac

          If a person, male/female/transitioning feels threatend, in that moment, then violence may be an appropriate response.  I try not to live in absolutes regarding this issue.  There are just too many variables.

          •  the variables (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dianna

            being each individuals response.

            The absolute, is as always, absolute.

            The only time violence is an appropriate response is when your physical safety is in danger.

            People's inability to judge when that point is reached doesn't change what is right.

            I Have Come To The Conclusion That Politics Are Too Serious A Matter To Be Left To The Politicians... Charles De Gaulle (1890-1970)

            by 59stevenm on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:42:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, what if you think you (0+ / 0-)

              are in physical danger?  That is my point.  I try not to make absolute statements regarding this

              because

              we don't know the circumstances, or the level of threat an individual experiences.  That's why there are trials, and why there are certain standards reliant upon what Reasonable People for that community may feel.

              •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                That was my point, sort of.

                If you were not in danger and you physically assault someone, the fact that someone with better judgement would have reacted differently, isn't going to help your own case.

                I Have Come To The Conclusion That Politics Are Too Serious A Matter To Be Left To The Politicians... Charles De Gaulle (1890-1970)

                by 59stevenm on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:02:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Agree, on all points. ( nt ) (0+ / 0-)

      The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:54:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disappointing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dianna, jessical

        You think it's ok to assault someone for making a pass at another person?

        Isn't that what Matthew Sheppard's killers claimed they did?

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:07:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Perhaps I mis-read. (0+ / 0-)

          I read that the commenter, if confronted by someone, might just slug the person.  I wouldn't.  But I can see it happening.  Of course, the slugger would be subject to assault and battery chargers.

          I also read this, written by the commenter above:

          "But it is indeed a hate crime to plot a beating on a gay man, as Tucker did."

           And I certainly agree with that.  You seem to have missed that part.

           The commenter distinguishes between an momentary outburst of anger, resulting in a fat lip for someone (which, again, would be prosecutable), and a premeditated act of wilding-type violence against someone due to their sexual orientation.  I see how the things can be distinguished.  You don't.  So we disagree.  Ain't free speech great?

           BenGoshi
          __________________________________________________

           

          The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

          by BenGoshi on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:22:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Read my response to the commenter below (0+ / 0-)

            I had no disagreement with what he said regarding Tucker's actions.   But the main point of his post was defending the idea of physically assaulting someone for making a pass, something I can't condone.  You said you agreed with everything he wrote, so I assumed you were agreeing with his main point, that a punch would be justified.  And I don't think it is, not at all.

            I finally put in a signature!

            by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:28:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Nice Gay Panic defense (9+ / 0-)

      People here aren't missing the point.  Nobody here has defended people making such passes.  Nobody here has said that a man shouldn't be able to do his business in the restroom in peace.

      But no, it is NOT okay to violently assault someone for making a pass at you, no matter when or where.  I don't see how anyone could miss the basic premise that responding to a pass with violence isn't acceptable.

      A man making a pass at you in the restroom may make you uncomfortable, it may make your visit to that restroom an unpleasant place.  But, to paraphrase Jefferson, it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.  You're free to refuse, however politely or impolitely you like.  But no, you're not entitled to give someone a "knuckle sandwich" for it.  That would be a crime, and a hate crime in many places.

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:06:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I mostly agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boris Godunov, North Country Dem

      but...

      A) I doubt it happened that way at all; B) Why did he have to go get help? and C) We'll never know the nature of the (probably fictional) "pass" the alledged gay guy made.

      If it was physical in nature, fine... Knock the hell out of anyone, hetero or homosexual who does that.

      If, otoh, it was merely a proposition, what's wrong with simply walking away?

      I'm hopelessly heterosexual and have been "approached" by gay men upon occasion. My response was usually: "No thanks. I'm married." which tells them I'm not interested and straight.

      And I walked away with no problems whatsoever.

      This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

      by Snud on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:07:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think (0+ / 0-)

      There are two kinds of attention.  One is good when the person really likes you.  If he hits on me, I wouldn't get angry because the intention was not to hurt me. Just be ignore them or give them the polite, no thanks, vibe.

      There is another kind, the harasser.  People get these mixed up.  This kind is done in anger and control, and they don't like you, but they want to pick on you and perhaps make you feel small and unimportant.  Even then, I woldn't punch them.  What works for them is to ignore them.

      But violence is not the answer in my book.

      Not the pc police, but I've figured this out over time.

    •  The proper response to the first scenario (0+ / 0-)

      (verbal statement of interest in sex) would be to emphatically deny interest, leave and tell authorities.

      The proper response to the second scenario ("a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC.") is to do what he did at first, to break away if possible and run. The he should have called the police and filed a sexual assault report, not gone back with a friend to personally restrain the man until the security guard arrived (as he described the incident in his explanation to MediaMatters).

      On the air he described the incident as:

      I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --
      ...
      Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!
      ...
      And then the cops came and arrested him.

      -- MediaMatters

      He either took the law into his own hands and inflicted punishment reserved for the courts to inflict, or he lied on the air to his viewers.

      "Do not do what you hate" - Tom Fox
      ps. I'm not a doctor, I'm from Maryland.

      by KJC MD on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:53:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, you had me up until "knuckle sandwich" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      R Rhino from CT4

      There's no justification for physically assaulting someone over mere words. Adults don't do that, only immature kids do — and that may let off the high-school-aged Tucker. Or if the guy did grab him, that would.

      But otherwise, you respond to words with words, and only get physical if someone else gets physical with you first. That's what grown-ups do.

      In the words of Isaac Asimov, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

      45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

      by dconrad on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:32:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lying Piece of Sh** (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, WI Dem

    No way did he do that.
    Waiting to get through on my second call.....

    I Have Come To The Conclusion That Politics Are Too Serious A Matter To Be Left To The Politicians... Charles De Gaulle (1890-1970)

    by 59stevenm on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:43:02 PM PDT

    •  Tucker's twisted fantasy . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WI Dem, 59stevenm

      . . . S&M in the men's room.  Very, very sick.

      BenGoshi
      ________________________________________________

      The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:53:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BenGoshi

        There are some very nice bathrooms in the world.

        I Have Come To The Conclusion That Politics Are Too Serious A Matter To Be Left To The Politicians... Charles De Gaulle (1890-1970)

        by 59stevenm on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:05:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anywhere where defecation occurs is gross to me.. (0+ / 0-)

          But, you know, this e-conversation's getting kind of gross to me, too, and I'm not even in a restroom.  And I certainly hope you're not, either.

          BenGoshi
          ____________________________________________________

          The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

          by BenGoshi on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:25:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  so a blumpkin (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BenGoshi

            is out of the question!

            I mean the kind of bathrooms(not public) over say 1000 square feet.

            You know, jacuzzi tub, $80,000 chandelier.
            That kind of bathroom.

            I Have Come To The Conclusion That Politics Are Too Serious A Matter To Be Left To The Politicians... Charles De Gaulle (1890-1970)

            by 59stevenm on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:28:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You certainly run in differenct circles than do I (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WI Dem, 59stevenm

              Although the private bathrooms at the Kerry, in Beijing, and the Taj Mahal, in New Delhi, and the New Otani, in Osaka, ain't too shabby.

              BenGoshi
              ___________________________________________________

              The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

              by BenGoshi on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:34:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  My letter to MSNBC: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tiponeill, RiaD

    For Dan Abrams, Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborogh:

    What is so funny about beating up a gay person; as Tucker claims he did some years ago??

    Do you support violence to handle all situations of misunderstanding??

    Should the lady at the bar who is approached by a male asking for a date; leave; and come back with someone to beat up that guy??

    Hate crimes have no place in America--and you people should no longer have anyplace on MSNBC!!

    Disgusted--

  •  Sounds like a prime candidate for Keith's WPITW (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WI Dem

    does anybody have a video link or transcript for verification?

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by justmy2 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:44:42 PM PDT

  •  tucker carlson beat up someone? (4+ / 0-)

    hahaha

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:44:51 PM PDT

  •  I just sent the following letter to "Tuckie!" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Five of Diamonds, TimCbrowne

    Hey Tucker,

    I don't blame you that you would rough up some perv who approached you in the bathroom for sex...what I do find objectionable, is that you had to go get ANOTHER guy to come back with you and rough the guy up...now THAT I find really objectionable and sackless!

    No matter how much of a pervert the guy was, two on one in a fight is pretty bogus and you at least should have had enough sense than to brag about needing somebody else to HELP you beat up some toilet queen!

    What a little pussy you are! I hope the next guy you meet in the bathroom doesn't want to blow you, but rather just slap the piss out of you!

  •  i always turn the boobtoob off... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lonelyutahdem15

    when bow-tie boy comes on.  I know he's like watching a train wreck, but he still nauseates me.  Yes, he should go.

  •  Hate Crime vs. Nappy headed ho's? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tiponeill, RiaD

    Imus was fired for disrespectful words, Carlson should be fired for admission of a felony! They should all be fired for laughing and supporting a hate crime

  •  Can you imagine the hue and cry if (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Louise, lirtydies, Eric K, o the umanity

    women, when receiving an unwanted pass, retrieved a friend / friends and proceeded to assault the person who made the unwanted pass?

    I can see the headlines now:

    "Engraged Angry Psychotic Lesbians Attack Innocent Straight Man For No Reason".

    Man.. some days I really loathe our society.

    If education is a product of environment, why is opportunity the product of genetics?

    by Johnathan Ivan on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:49:44 PM PDT

  •  He beat the guy up in the men's room? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack, 59stevenm

    Wow, that's pretty gay.

  •  I must have missed that part of (4+ / 0-)

    Tuck's blubbering.  All I heard him say was that he has been "bothered" in rest rooms before, and then they all laughed.  

    You have got to figure there is something wrong with Tucker to begin with.  How many people does each of us know who wears a bow under his/her chin
    until their mid thirties?  And then there was the long curly hair.  I almost expected him to stand up to show nickers and plaid shorts not so long ago.  He now has so much ground to make up to believe himself to be a grownup man. But it's awkward for him, having been a child for 34 years.  And what he picks as a story to make himself look more grownup and masculine, is something that little boys would think would be effective.  He has no idea that to be a man, and appear sexy, he needs to show that he can handle be sensitive to people, and genuinely care.  Now that would be a sexy, attractive man, not the man that Tucker is trying to be.

  •  Tucker's 'explanation' is irrelevant (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiaD, 59stevenm

    (as well as being a patent lie which makes no sense).

    The real problem is that he didn't present the story as an "assault" but as being "bothered in a rest room" like Craig.

    And that Abrams and Scarbourogh laughed and approved of that story.

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

    by tiponeill on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:54:48 PM PDT

    •  Indeed, the context of the story is important (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      o the umanity

      here, and one has to ask if this fabrication and laugh fest would have ever happened if it wasn't for Larry Craig.

      If one presumes the reason this story was presented in the manner it did, the intent of this was clearly to intimidate and make fun of people in the gay community.

      Carlson was effectively saying that Craig should have gotten beaten up for his trouble.

      socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

      by shpilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:03:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bothered can mean many things. (0+ / 0-)

      Can be used as a euphemism when you don't want to go into details.

      Dubya: often wrong, but never in doubt.

      by auapplemac on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:40:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I got assaulted once in a bus station (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    choppycursur, o the umanity

    When I was 20, I was walking through a crowd in the Pittsburgh Greyhound Bus Station, somewhat distracted, when some guy reached down and tickled my crotch as he walked past me.  I was stunned.  My first reaction was to find a cop.  My second reaction was I was never going to be able to find the creep because it happened so fast, I didn't get a good look at him.    So, I let it go.
    It didn't cross my mind to get a posse of my friends together to go beat him up.  
    If Tucker was really assaulted, he should have let the cops work him over.  

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:55:26 PM PDT

    •  Back in the early 1980s, (4+ / 0-)

      my then-boyfriend (14 years my senior) and I went up to San Francisco for an event with a bunch of his friends. I went off to use the restroom, and when I came back, a gay guy was in the process of propositioning my boyfriend!

      He sat there and listened to the guy run his spiel, then glanced at me and said calmly, "Sorry, I'm taken."

      With age comes wisdom -- for most folks, not Tucker, evidently...

      "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -- teacherken

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:39:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You handled it well. (0+ / 0-)

      A long time ago a doctor was inappropriate to me (I was really ill) but I didn't say anything.  I was just in college and didn't know my rights at the time.  I never once thought to get my friends together and beat him up either.  It never crossed my mind.

  •  I believe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beowulf, choppycursur

    I believe any gay man should be punished for soliciting or violating a person in a restroom just like a straight man would be punished going into a women's bathroom and doing the same. Whether it's being beaten up or being arrested.

    •  Wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      missreporter, Eric K

      unless you think that gay men should go in womens rest rooms etc ?

      It is not a crime to flirt with someone - gay or straight male or female - and there is no reason that a rest room is any different from a bar.

      Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

      by tiponeill on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:58:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong - see Lary Craig (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        choppycursur, CeeusBeeus

        Lewd behavior in a public restroom is generally illegal . .

        •  If rest rooms were unisex (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric K, Dianna

          and straight guys could be arrested for telling a girl she was good looking, then I'd agree that such laws weren't just holdovers from the thousand and one ways to persecute gays ;)

          There's no doubt that the "crime" Craig pleaded guilty to shouldn't be one - it is just that he is responsible for the homophobia that creates such laws and so is hoist on his on petard.

          So to speak.

          Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

          by tiponeill on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:41:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It is when you use it as a stake-out. (0+ / 0-)

        This guy parked himself in the bathroom. It wasn't just seeing someone attractive and making eye contact to see if there was a return of interest. That would be flirting.

        But, stalking is not cool and should not be acceptable.

        Dubya: often wrong, but never in doubt.

        by auapplemac on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:45:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  i think straight men (6+ / 0-)

      should be arrested and punished for shouting at, whistling at, and following me when I walk down the street. I feel sexually threatened.

      Also what you are saying is that gay men should not be able to go in the "straight" man's bathroom...you might not mean to say that but it's what you're saying.

      i am human.
      -6.63, -5.95

      by missreporter on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:14:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What if it's a straight guy (0+ / 0-)
      that just wants some strange?

      I Have Come To The Conclusion That Politics Are Too Serious A Matter To Be Left To The Politicians... Charles De Gaulle (1890-1970)

      by 59stevenm on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:35:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's Ok to hit up on someone but not harass. (0+ / 0-)

      There is a huge difference.  It has to do with intent.  

      •  age is also a factor (0+ / 0-)

        You can say or do things to a consenting adult that will get you locked up if they're a minor.  The critical fact is Tucker's age at the time.  

        Sexual offenses involving minors are a strict liability crimes... that is, it doesn't matter whether or not the defendant knew the victim's age, they're still guilty if the victim is, in fact, under age.

    •  So a gay man (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WI Dem

      would be in trouble if he just asked a stranger for his phone number? That could be construed as "soliciting" in some circles, even if no money was offered. Think of how many states still criminalize same-sex sexual conduct...

      "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -- teacherken

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:42:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm all for them firing Tucker... (6+ / 0-)

    ...for whatever reason.  Any reason.  He just needs to go.

  •  Letter written: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Louise, Dianna, WI Dem, Neon Mama

    Dear MSNBC,

    Your news network is becoming the only reliable corporate news outlet available with the growing popularity of Keith Olbermann.  

    That momentum was stopped in its tracks today when Tucker Carlson, Dan Abrams and Joe Scarborough celebrated a violent hate crime with laughter.

    Tucker Carlson admitted to gay-bashing in his youth.  He admitted to doing so with caviler disregard to the atrocious hateful bigotry that inspires such an act.  The depravity of Carlson's story is two-fold.  First, he relayed the story in an apparent attempt to cover for convicted felon Senator Craig, which, in itself, demonstrates Carlson's blatant bias toward the Republicans instead of a sound journalistic ethic.  Second, he was proud of his acts.  

    The man was proud of his premeditated decision to get a friend, seek out the homosexual man that made an advance at him, and, together, violently beat the man because he was gay.  These are the acts of a hate crime.  These are the acts of bigotry-inspired violence.

    Those of your vieweers who have been the victim of assaults, and especially those of your viewers who have been the victim of bigotry-inspired violence, deserve an apology from your network, Abrams and Scarborough.  

    Tucker Carlson should be fired.  Otherwise your network will be seen as condoning his actions.

    Sincerely,

    [Five of Diamonds]

    Neutralize your personal 7.5 ton/year CO2 footprint.

    by Five of Diamonds on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:57:07 PM PDT

  •  Tucker Carlson couldn't beat up my mother (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WI Dem

    (and she's dead) And I don't believe for a second that he did what he most likely just fantasized about doing to appeal to the 'Pug, troglodyte "base".

    Which makes him a liar and a homophobe. But that's not exactly breaking news.

    I'm all for raising a stink about his pathetic  attempt (as he likely sees it) at trying to grow  some testicles in the eyes of his peers but beyond that, the best thing we can do, imho, is ignore the pipsqueak and never watch his show.

    That's what I do with Faux Noise.

    I suspect that his story was likely told in reverse and Tucker got the crap kicked out of him. Probably about every day.

    His ratings are so far down the crapper that Roto Rooter couldn't find anyone who watches him. Just a little shove and poof! Out damned spot!

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:57:28 PM PDT

  •  Please. Don't Help. (11+ / 0-)

    What Tucker Carlson claims to have done isn't "gay bashing" per se.  If what happened really happened, then he is guilty of assualt.  But NOT "gay bashing."

    I have not spent 20+ years advocating for gay rights so men can hit up other men for sex in the public toilets.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I have done so in an effort the ensure that LGBT persons are able to live their lives openly, and without shame.

    Do I want Tucker to go?  Yes.  Do I want to make this a gay rights argument.  HELL no.  Tucker should be fired for admitting assault, and laughing about it.  Now, if Tucker had hauled off and hit the guy when he came on to him, I could almost understand.  But if Tucker left, got a buddy, and came back, it's not only assault, it's very cowardly.

    Shut up and impeach.

    by HarveyMilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:58:18 PM PDT

    •  You are wrong (4+ / 0-)

      he went back to beat up the guy because he was gay.

      If after 20 years you don't realize that sometimes gays hit each other up in restrooms as well as bars, and that if you aren't interested the right response is "no thank you" and not beating their heads in, you have wasted 20 years

      Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

      by tiponeill on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:00:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auapplemac, choppycursur, dconrad, alba

        He went back to beat up the guy because he was an asshole, who happened to be gay.

        A bar is a wholly different environment than a public toilet.  If you don't understand that, we have nothing to discuss. I won't waste one minute of time on closet case toilet predators.

        Shut up and impeach.

        by HarveyMilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:03:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No he went back to beat up a gay guy (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dianna, North Country Dem, 59stevenm

          who made a pass.

          The context of the story (Larry Craig's arrest, etc) are very clear.

          Other than that we seem to have nothing to discuss, other than you seeming to feel that your self-loathing righeousness entitles you to speak for the gay community.

          I haven't spent 30 years working for gay rights to watch a priss like you defend gay bashing.

          Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

          by tiponeill on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:07:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Self-Loathing Righteousness? (6+ / 0-)

            Because I don't feel the need to secret away my sexual identity and have anonymous toilet sex, and won't defend those who do, I'm self-loathing?  What color is the sky in your world?

            Again, is the public toilet the same as a bar?  No, it isn't.  I take my nephews to the bathroom when we are out someplace.  I never take my nephews to a bar -- gay or straight.  My nephews have a right to go pee without witnessing sex of any kind.

            I don't know who you've spent 30 years working for, but it ain't me.   And I was right -- we have nothing to discuss.

            Shut up and impeach.

            by HarveyMilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:12:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The sky in my world (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cali Scribe, 59stevenm

              What color is the sky in your world?

              In my world - when Tucker was in High School - it was quite common for gay men to meet in places like restrooms and in the bushes of public parks.

              Often there were no "gay bars" and if there were then being seen entering one could cause you to lose your job. You were even taking a chance of being arrested and having your name appear in newspapers, although the Mafia ran the bar and the cops were usually paid off.

              Cops waited at the bus station to arrest gays who got off at the bus stop or send them back to Boston "where they belonged".

              People were thrown out of motel windows and killed by the solder they met at the bus station, and the soldier was aquitted because a pass was made at him.

              So keep up your good work of defending the out and proud San Francisco rsidents of the world, but please don't encourage the neanderthals of alabam and Mississipi to think that it os OK to bash in the heads of gays because they happen to meet them in a rest room.

              That isn't the kind of help we need.

              Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

              by tiponeill on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:22:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Boston? Alabama? Mississippi? San Francisco? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                HarveyMilk

                Tucker said this happened in Georgetown. I'm assuming he's referring to the university, and it is located in Washington, D.C. Tucker is 38, and (presumably, based on his age) graduated from high school in 1987. He was (presumably) between the age of 14 and 18 when this happened, between 1983 and 1987.

                Were there no gay bars in Washington, D.C. in those years? Where was the nearest one to the Georgetown campus in those days?

                I assume you bring up San Francisco because your interlocutor's nom-de-guerre is "HarveyMilk", but the relevant context for the discussion is D.C. early-to-mid 80's.

                The sky on my world is blue. Blue sky on Mars? That's a new one.

                45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

                by dconrad on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:52:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I agree with both of you in a way (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WI Dem, shaharazade

                Harvey Milk, first of all let me say that I am just as disgusted as you are, and have made comments indicating so, with closet "gays" who attempt to cruise for sex in public restrooms.

                However, unless the attempt at sex was violent or threatening you in a physical way, the proper response, as others have said, is to say a firm "No thanks, not interested", (and surely there are gays who have been approached and found it just as disgusting as you).  If you are an adult man, that is all that is necessary.  If you feel that the individual could be a threat to a minor child, then the proper response would be to contact the police or security.  BUT IT IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE TO RESPOND WITH VIOLENCE!!  To me, the willingness of someone to want to give a gay person, even the disgusting kind who frequent men's restrooms, a "knuckle" sandwich is a red flag for homophobia or antigay bias.  Do you think your teenage son should be given a "knuckle sandwich" if he made a pass at a pretty girl walking alone on the street?  To the girl that might be as intimidating as a straight guy getting cruised by a gay guy in a public restroom.

                Tip Oneil, I agree with you up to the point that I feel you are agreeing that it is ok for some gays to cruise for sex in public restrooms,or that is was at one time necessary for them to do so.  I came out in the 70's, and for a long time did not know where any gay bars were.  But I never considered going to a public restroom to cruise for sex.  The whole thing just grosses me out.  But I agree with you 100% that the proper response to this is a firm "No thank you" and not a "knuckle sandwich" or Tucker Carlson's premedicated cowardly attack coming back with reinforcements.

  •  I disagree. (4+ / 0-)

    You honestly want to fire someone due to an anecdote about something they did in high school?  

    Seriously?

    I'm 100% certain that lots of you are looking at pink slips if you find that to be an acceptable practice.

  •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Louise, WI Dem, Aaa T Tudeattack

    Tucker's explanation is pretty lame. His initial recounting of that story never indicated that he was assaulted.

    If that were the case, why didn't he immediately report the perpetrator or seek help when he initially got away? Why on earth would he go back into the restroom 25 minutes later with a friend--unless he was looking to escalate the situation?

    It also doesn't seem likely that he'd find a true attempted sexual assault worthy of a good chuckle.

    No, he said he "shoved the guy's head against the stall," and the crew of frat-boys on MSNBC thought that was simply hilarious.

    In any event, I'd sure love to see that police report.

    The country we carry in our hearts is waiting. -- Bruce Springsteen

    by saucy monkey on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:00:04 PM PDT

  •  Why didn't he return with a cop? (3+ / 0-)

    Instead of his friend?

    Cue Stephanie Miller's "Lying Sack of Crap" song...

    You're a lying sack of crap...
    You're a lying sack of crap...
    You're a lying stinking
    Nasty steaming
    Sack of liquid crap...

    George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

    by ThatSinger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:00:10 PM PDT

  •  Oh! (0+ / 0-)

    It was a citizens arrest.
    The plot thickens, maybe he'll get an honorary badge from officer Shaq.

    I Have Come To The Conclusion That Politics Are Too Serious A Matter To Be Left To The Politicians... Charles De Gaulle (1890-1970)

    by 59stevenm on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:00:59 PM PDT

    •  No - the police were involved (0+ / 0-)

      Or at least that's what Tucker said last night . . .

      •  They held the perp (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beowulf

        for the cops, allegedly.

        Until a sworn officer of the law arrives on scene to assume custody of the subject, it would be a citizens arrest.

        I Have Come To The Conclusion That Politics Are Too Serious A Matter To Be Left To The Politicians... Charles De Gaulle (1890-1970)

        by 59stevenm on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:46:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He says the guy grabbed him -- that he had to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          auapplemac, alba

          physically get away from him.  If that's true, then coming back with a friend and restraining the guy til the police came was perfectly justified.

          I dislike Carlson Tucker heartily.  But unless he's lying, this is not a gay-bashing case.  Not even if they slammed they guy up against the wall.

  •  Is there no low too depraved (2+ / 0-)

     There is a profound smarminess to Tucker - but this does seem so far beyond the pale.  I should not be - but I remain continuously amazed at how low these "elites" want to take the national discourse in an attempt to maybe make us all feel as perverted, hollow and pathetic as they know they are.  Such self-loating is so destructive.

  •  From the guy who defends Rush and Billo... (0+ / 0-)

    Yeah, I've done that when they engaged in political satire, even though it was offensive.  You can look it up in my user page if interested.

    But this is something different.  This was not political satire, rather it was promoting violence that was unnecessary. Obviously, Tucker's latter story that he held the guy for the cops was completely different, and was justifiable.  

    I wish someone had a Tivo of this segment.  I often use my video recorder and when something outrageous like this happens I use my little digital camera and upload it to YouTube and then it is in the public record.

    It would be important to have the actual words, since they are an indictment on Tucker that depend on the exact verbiage.  

    There is nothing legally that can be done, and the tragedy is that this will actually enhance his appeal to those who watch his show.  Craig is a rather pathetic individual engaging in a not so rare action.

    This commentgoes links to a sociological study from 1970 on this phenomenon

  •  Tucker's explanation is BS (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gottschee, RiaD, WI Dem, shaharazade, Leo in NJ

    Here's an excerpt of the transcript from the show, from The Bilerico Project's diary:

    ABRAMS: Tucker, what did you do, by the way? What did you do when he did that? We got to know.

    CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --

    ABRAMS: And did what?

    CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!
    [laughter]

    CARLSON: And then the cops came and arrested him. But let me say that I'm the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet --

    [laughter]

    Folks, that is gay bashing.

  •  Well... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WI Dem, Aaa T Tudeattack, Leo in NJ

    Hate Crimes have become part of Republican values in America. Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter make their careers off advocating hate crimes against gays, minorities, immigrants and Jews. Each of them have even advocated assassination and terrorist attacks on Americans.

    But there is a difference here. As far as I am aware, neither Bill O'Reilly nor Ann Coulter, for all their nasty, stupid and childish rhetoric, have ADMITTED to committing a hate crime. Tucker Carlson has.

    Report this to the following:

    Southern Poverty Law Center

    Anti-Defamation league (they deal with a wide variety of hate crimes)

    Lambda

    And, while we're at it, report it to law enforcement (the FBI) and to the FCC.

    A man admitted to committing a crime on national television. So report it to the proper authorities.

    •  I hate to say this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auapplemac, Leo in NJ

      But given that it's been at least 20 years since Tucker was in High School, the statute of limitations for assault passed LONG ago.

      We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

      by ScrewySquirrel on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:11:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aaa T Tudeattack, Leo in NJ

        That is for the authorities to decide. Plus your comment only applies to the FBI. Plus a 20 year old event could indicate there are more recent ones. This is the sort of thing that can lead to an arrest on those real crime shows on TV like the FBI files : -)

        Seriously. If you overheard someone admit to a hate crime, would you report it? To me that is the key here. If it turns out there are legal technicalities, then let's publicize the fact that he gets off because of a legal technicality. The ADL, Lambda, SPLC and FCC may all still be interested since the talking about it is happening right now on national TV.

  •  Uh.. aren't you missing that (4+ / 0-)

    He was a HS student getting grabbed by an adult in a restroom.

    Would you want that to happen to your kid ? What if it was a man in the ladies room?

    While Carlson & friend shouldn't have taken the law into his own hands.

    Pedophiles shouldn't be trying to grab kids in restrooms.

    Consenting gay or straight people shouldn't be having sex in public places.

    I can't believe someone just made me defend Tucker.

    •  That wasn't his first story (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Louise, Leo in NJ

      He said nothing about being "grabbed" last night.  He just said he was bothered.  I will be dollars to donuts that he's making the "grabbed" thing up to excuse his participation in the beating (which, frankly, might be entirely made up anyway).

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:14:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you're missing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auapplemac, RiaD

        the point!  People aren't supposed to be having sex in bathrooms!  Not only am I shocked that I'm defending Tucker Carlson, I shocked that you are defending lewd and indecent behavior in a public place!

        People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

        by choppycursur on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:27:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WI Dem

          I shocked that you are defending lewd and indecent behavior in a public place!

          What a crock.  Where did I defend that?  Nowhere.

          Look up the "False Dilemma" logical fallacy.  Just because I express disgust at Tucker's violent reaction to a pass does not mean I'm in any way condoning what the supposed "creep" did.  By your logic, if I'm opposed to the death penalty for drunk drivers, I must be condoning drunk driving. Ever hear of the punishment fitting the crime? Absolutely ludicrous reasoning on your part.

          I finally put in a signature!

          by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:34:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  he never said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            auapplemac

            that he beat him up.  He went to get someone else to keep the guy there until the police arrived.  I saw the youtube clip and I could tell that the encounter still bothered him even after all these years.  If someone wanted to sexually assault a young teenage girl in a public bathroom, somehow I think most would view her as a heroine had she and a friend managed to resrain the pedophile until the police arrived.  

            What happened to Tucker Carlson isn't funny.  You are all laughing at him even as his own co-hosts were.  Indecent proposals in public bathrooms is sick and against the law and the defence of it to me is incomprehensible.

            People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

            by choppycursur on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:00:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wow. Now you're being dishonest. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WI Dem, shaharazade

              he never said that he beat him up.

              Yes.  He did.  From his own words:

              CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --

              ABRAMS: And did what?

              CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!

              Hitting someone against the wall with their head certainly is beating them.  If you don't think so, get someone to do it to you and see how you feel about it.

              If someone wanted to sexually assault a young teenage girl in a public bathroom, somehow I think most would view her as a heroine had she and a friend managed to resrain the pedophile until the police arrived.  

              Yeah, but that's not what Carlson said initially happened.  He said a guy in a restroom "bothered" him, and he got a friend to go back and "hit him against the stall with his head."  As I said above, Carlson's subsequent "clarification" reeks of backpeddaling.

              What happened to Tucker Carlson isn't funny.  You are all laughing at him even as his own co-hosts were.  Indecent proposals in public bathrooms is sick and against the law and the defence of it to me is incomprehensible.

              When did I laugh at him?  I don't see most people here laughing at him.  On the contrary, I found the whole story appalling, and that's all I've expressed.

              And once again, NO ONE has said such proposals are ok.  No one has defended them.  Where are you getting this idea?  What I'm saying is that, no matter how wrong making a pass at someone in a bathroom may be, it doesn't justify beating the person up.  Not at all.  And based on Carlson's initial version, what he did was completely uncalled for.

              I finally put in a signature!

              by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:29:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  not defending the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric K, WI Dem

          man who bothered Tucker but his nasty story being told and laugh at, the violence being laughed at is what weirds me out. It was a national news show and three grown men think it's funny to respond a really creepy story which if it did occur would have been traumatizing  but not funny.

          Tucker is a nasty creepy mean dude and stupid to boot. The second story is him trying to cover his ass. Actually neither story makes sense.  If Tucker is involved he's bound to be lying or wrong. It's the giving this asshole air time and laughing at him that I don't understand. So grabbing the dudes dick and bashing his head after the fact and with reinforcements makes him a tough guy? He really is nothing more then a bundle of hate.  

          "And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Bob Dylan

          by shaharazade on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:06:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Before this is over, Tucker will be (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiaD, WI Dem, shaharazade, Leo in NJ

      admitting that he fabricated the entire incident.

      If you are a high school student and are accosted like that, you get away and call the police. You don't go back, even with a friend. 25 minutes later, indeed.

      Before I believe any of his stories, I want to see:
      (a) the arrest record of the so-called assailant
      (b) The name and  eyewitness account of the "friend."
      (c) the name and eyewitness account of the security officer who was called onto the scene.

    •  The first time he told the story (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, WI Dem

      Carlson was the only one doing any grabbing. Even if his 2nd story is true he's still in the wrong. He should have sent the police (the first time) or a security guard (the 2nd time) and stayed out of it. He assaulted the guy. Period.

  •  I'm not sure... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auapplemac, shaharazade

    this qualifies as a "hate crime".

    But it does qualify as an assault.

  •  Public toilet postings we'd like NOT to see: (0+ / 0-)

    WARNING: These premises are patrolled by Tucker Carlson Security Service.

  •  Tucker: Men commit adultery when away from wives (4+ / 0-)

    Here's Tucker talking about the institution of marriage during the Vitter thing:

    Men when they lived apart from their wives and children tend to commit adultery as you know.  That is just the way men are.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

  •  I'm no fan of (3+ / 0-)

    Tucker Carlson but I don't understand how you can associate what happened to Carlson when he was in high school with gay bashing.  Sexual predators loitering in bathrooms should always be condemned.  Why do you associate lewd behavior in bathrooms with being gay?  

    Tucker did the right thing.  Lewd and public indecency is against the law and should always be condemned.  That kind of behavior has nothing to do with homosexuality.

    People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

    by choppycursur on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:19:36 PM PDT

    •  No (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      choppycursur, Boris Godunov, WI Dem

      absolutely not.  If he felt threatened he should have told his parents or summoned a policeman and let the law take care of it.  There was no reason for him to return to the area with or without a friend.

      * 3732 * http://icasualties.org/oif/

      by BDA in VA on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:00:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you're right (0+ / 0-)

        but I'm not sure that really happened.  I actually think the behavior of Abrams and Scarborough was objectionable.  I actually felt sorry for Carlson.

        People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

        by choppycursur on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:04:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  but I just want to (0+ / 0-)

        ask, why do you associate that kind of behavior with "gay" bashing and not "pervert" bashing.  Why do you associate lewd behavior in bathrooms with being gay?  I don't.

        People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

        by choppycursur on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:08:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  When I was in junior high (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WI Dem, shaharazade

        I would walk home alone from school. On several occasions there was a man in a car who would be masturbating himself in full view of me. I was relatively innocent for that age, but I did tell my brother about it (this was several years after my dad died); he probably would've been well within his rights to grab his motorcycle buddies and beat the living crap out of that perv...but he didn't -- he called the police, and they sent a female officer over along with a sketch artist and I had to try and describe the guy (his face, not the other part). I don't think they ever found him -- at least, I never had to give testimony or anything like that.

        Vigilante justice may feel good, but it's rarely justified...

        "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -- teacherken

        by Cali Scribe on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:57:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeh, but the guy got away to perform his (0+ / 0-)

          "act of self love" in front of other kids. Maybe if your bother's buddies had called the cops and then gone and held the guy, the world would be better off (sorry for the use of this word).

          Dubya: often wrong, but never in doubt.

          by auapplemac on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 05:15:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm no fan of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beowulf, auapplemac, ActivatedbyBush

    Tucker Carlson but I don't understand how you can associate what happened to Carlson when he was in high school with gay bashing.  Sexual predators loitering in bathrooms should always be condemned.  Why do you associate lewd behavior in bathrooms with being gay?  

    Tucker did the right thing.  Lewd and public indecency is against the law and should always be condemned.  That kind of behavior has nothing to do with homosexuality.

    People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

    by choppycursur on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:19:36 PM PDT

  •  Well, I (3+ / 0-)

    was all set to tell you how wrong I thought you were, until I saw his email to Media Matters.

    If, as he now claims, this was an assault, then he should have called the police and had the man arreested, and not taken matters into his own hands.

    I seriously doubt there was an assault, or he would have said so last night.

    However, I still have a problem with calling this a hate crime. And I don't believe it's a firing offense.

    I have three sons, and told them all, if a gay man makes an overture to you, just say I'm not interested.  It's not an insult to your 'manhood', so there's no reason for outrage.  

    What Carlson is guilty of is being brought up poorly, with no respect for others differences.  

  •  sorry about the double (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beowulf, Exclamation Point Brian

    postings but this is the second time that when I tried to edit a message before posting, it posts twice instead.

    People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

    by choppycursur on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:21:53 PM PDT

  •  Even if his 2nd story is true (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidkc, WI Dem

    he's still in the wrong. Security guards (it was "cops" the first time" don't just arrive, you send them to take care of a problem. Tucker should have done that and stayed out of it.

  •  story changes, just like craig. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    steelman, WI Dem, Leo in NJ

    It seems to me that Tucker C and Senator Craig both
    share the "change the story" gene. After they realize
    personal risk.

  •  "Beat the Press" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    steelman, davidkc, el cid, WI Dem

    At Dan Abram's MSNBC page, you can mail his "Beat the press" segment information. I'm emailing him a video of his own show's Tucker clip"
    "I have a great segment for "Beat the Press". It's when Tucker Carlson admitted he commited a hate crime. Hey, here's the link! http://www.youtube.com/...
    You can email "Beat the Press" here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    "This is an adventure"- Steve Zissou

    by TimCbrowne on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:22:43 PM PDT

  •  Please and Please (0+ / 0-)

    ...we need to get the arrest evidence from DC police..or CAN WE?.  We need to look for evidence of the arrest that Tucker Carlson has talked about.....there must be an arrest file of him in that restroom and we can post here.

    We got work to do...

    Ever heard being original? Too bad, look it up in the dictionary...

    by Dem Soldier on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:25:34 PM PDT

  •  Why (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beowulf, auapplemac, alba

    Should he be fired for something that he did when he was a juvenile?  Can the shrillness factor be toned done just a bit? You don't know all of the facts, you don't even know most of the facts, yet you are calling for a person to lose his livelihood.  

    •  Not about doing it (5+ / 0-)

      About laughing about it on the air, years after the fact.

      This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway...Leonard Cohen

      by SingularExistence on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:30:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My suggestion (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beowulf, auapplemac, etherapy, alba

        is for people to calm down and have a sense of proportionality.  He expressed his emotion about an uncomfortable situation and something that he did as a juvenile, which he probably wouldn't do now.   He didn't give us chapter and verse on the circumstances, some of which might have mitigated the inappropriateness of what he did.  

        In any case, there are far more important causes to fight for than the firing of Turker Carlson.  I've already wasted enough of my time on this stream.

    •  Ya, I can just imagine (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WI Dem, MichiganGirl

      Chet Huntley or Walter Cronkite relating that story on their news program, can't you?

      It's what passes for being a 'journalist' these days, didn't you know; hell, these days, maybe it's a pre-requisite to landing a job on the air. Let's ask that paragon of character and virtue, Don Imus.

      socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

      by shpilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:56:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Media Matters link... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidkc

    here.

    It may be a good idea for you to include this in your diary, so that when it reaches 400+ comments and people are afraid to open the comments section up for fear of crashing their computer, that they can easily find the link to the Media Matters update with Tucker's e-mail.

    •  good idea (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DC Scott

      I also think this diary should reprint this part of the transcript, which complete debunks Tucker's bogus explanation:

      ABRAMS: Tucker, what did you do, by the way? What did you do when he did that? We got to know.

      CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --

      ABRAMS: And did what?

      CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!
      [laughter]

      CARLSON: And then the cops came and arrested him. But let me say that I'm the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet --

      [laughter]

  •  Ya ought to Give Tucker Carlson a Break. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric K, ohcanada, WI Dem, FishBiscuit

    As the truth of the sexual assault committed on a young and impressionable Tucker Carlson in a Georgetown bathroom in the 1980's emerges from Young Tuck being "bothered" to Young Tuck being "assaulted" to Tucker Carlson being "forcibly raped" we should have pity and sympathy for Mr. Carlson.  After all, it appears that he turned out all right. At least he suvived the savage attack and is somewhat of a Whole person today.

    /s

    Notice: This Comment © ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:31:08 PM PDT

  •  Of course this makes Tucker's HS Records (0+ / 0-)

    admissible, to see if he was lying about the incident.

    Because if he DID do what he said, it would be in his High School records.

    What High School did he go to?

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, My God! Perhaps I am! -Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:36:39 PM PDT

  •  Bothering with assault (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Louise, DemDachshund, Dem Soldier, WI Dem

    I've been assaulted before...it would never occur to me to charaterize it the way Tucker did on air.  How strange to call it 'bothering'.

    Either Tucker is lying now, about the alleged assault, or he was lying on air to make the incident seem less about him as victim and more about making him look 'tough'.

    Either way, he's a weasel.

  •  He's lying. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BDA in VA, SharaiP

    Has he learned nothing about the net? Someone's going to investigate his claim. Look for a police report, find the friend he's talking about.
    Tucker, Tucker, Tucker.....you're about as good a liar as Craig.

    •  not necessarily (0+ / 0-)

      If the guy who propositioned him was also a minor, then the records could be sealed. Ditto if DC has a first offender expungement policy.

      Or perhaps, if Tucker and his friend had beaten him up pretty severely, the cop might have just handcuffed the guy and dropped him off at home (or a hospital), figuring he had already gotten his punishment.

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DC Scott, WI Dem

    Changed his story pretty quick, didn't he?  Also, that does not explain away the other yucksters that were laughing it up over the incident as first described by Carlson.

    * 3732 * http://icasualties.org/oif/

    by BDA in VA on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:49:39 PM PDT

  •  give me a break (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auapplemac, Samulayo, CollegeGuy10

    This is ridiculous. I can't stand Tucker Carlson, okay? But he told a stupid story that is probably partially or wholly untrue, in which he, as a high school student, was either harassed or groped in a bathroom. Coming back with a friend to knock his head against the stall is not the best thing to do, but not unexpected of a high school student.

    And for that matter, a guy hitting on or groping high school students in a public bathroom is a piece of shit whose head should be smacked against the wall. I doubt the validity of every aspect of this story, but if this happened, and he was still in the bathroom later, this guy is abusing strangers, and he deserves what he gets.  It has nothing to do with him being gay, and it doesn't make Carlson a "gay-basher". This sounds like fundies who think the ACLU hates Christians because they act against inappropriate ten commandment monuments and the like.

    And those other two guys were clearly just laughing at Tucker the whole time, and not laughing at the thought of beating up random gay person.

    I very rarely post, but with the recent attention to  DailyKos via O'Reilly and the like, I'd hate for Republican visitors to see diaries like this and think all progressives are this illogically reactionary. Equating a teenager hitting a predator in a bathroom with a hate crime feeds the whole right wing narrative about how stupid hate crime legislation is supposed to be, and shoots ourselves in the foot on a number of causes (hate crimes legislation, gay rights).

    In the unlikely event that any part of Carlson's story is true, it's one of the only tolerable things I've ever heard about the man.

    •  asdf (5+ / 0-)

      And for that matter, a guy hitting on or groping high school students in a public bathroom is a piece of shit whose head should be smacked against the wall.

      LOL! If you want a prison sentence, you go do that. But being "hit on" in a bathroom does not justify violence against someone.

    •  This is the kind of thinking (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, davidkc, munky, Dianna, WI Dem

      that lets us know we're not there yet.

      ...but not unexpected of a high school student.

      And for that matter, a guy hitting on or groping high school students in a public bathroom is a piece of shit whose head should be smacked against the wall.

      Ok first of all, I won't even comment on your obvious hatred for gay people since I can't prove it, I can only know it.

      But secondly ... there is never ... EVER a good time to have a 15 year old boy's head "smacked against a wall."  EVER!

      There is no time ... EVER ... that violence should be "Expected" in a school setting.

      I'll stop short of calling you a bigoted moron with an anger management problem seething underneath, and just suggest instead that you do some reflecting on how badly comments like yours impact our already struggling society.

      .

      •  Sadly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DemDachshund

        The situation would be reversed if it were a young woman in the stall doing the approaching, wouldn't it?

      •  Even an adult should not be beaten (4+ / 0-)

        I've been groped a few times. I laughed about it and told the guy (and the other time it was a female) to GET A FREAKIN LIFE. People are too sensitive about sexuality and private parts. So someone "gropes" you. Big fucking deal.

      •  oh brother (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auapplemac, lgmcp

        Oh, here we go.

        On my "obvious hatred of gay people," I can only tell you that there have been times when my dad didn't even want to talk to me because of how pro-gay rights I am, and my railing against his homophobia. Think what you want about me, I can't prove anything.

        I agree that there is never a time that a 15-year-old's head should be smacked against a wall, nor do I remember a time when I suggested that, or when Mr. Carlson ever said it was a 15-year-old who was "bothering" or "assaulting" him.

        And this wasn't a "school setting", it was at the park.

        Wait a minute...you don't even know what the hell you're angry about, do you? Why am I writing this reply?

        Cos I'm a sucker. Well, here goes again:

        Carlson first mentioned being "bothered" by a guy in a bathroom at the park. His mentioning that he was a high school student implies the other man wasn't.

        He later added a story about going back and knocking the man's head against the stall. The man was still in the bathroom for some reason. He also indicated he had called the police.

        Then he changed "bothered" to "assault". Okay, whatever. I think he made most of this stuff up anyway. Taken all together, we have a high school kid hitting a predator. Sorry, I can't feel that outrage. It must be my seething bigotry. When I get choked up hearing the national anthem before a gay pride parade, it's just lies.

        •  so your defense of him is that he's lying? (0+ / 0-)

          how does that make it OK?  

          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            auapplemac

            That's not really my defence. My defence is that he told a story about a man "bothering" him in a public bathroom, and after calling the police, he got a friend to come with him and hit him in the head. It's a creepy guy in a bathroom sexually "bothering" kids. And an immature kid hit him in the head for his trouble. What this has to do with hate crimes or gay rights is beyond me, and is not something to start a letter-writing crusade about. Even equating this with hate crimes to me equates predators like the person describe in Carlson's story with a normal homosexual.

        •  Okay, I am in error about the location (0+ / 0-)

          I just went back and re-read the transcript, and you are correct.  Carlson was himself in high school, but the incident was in a public park.  This does change the character of the incident.

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:19:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Predator? (6+ / 0-)

          Why are you so sure the guy was a predator?  I mean, sure that is what Tucker what's us to think, but you've already said you don't buy much of this story, and rightly so...but why believe that part?

          Isn't it just as possible the guy only looked at Tucker in a way Tucker took as 'sexual' and just took it wrong?

          Since you are so pro-gay, ask some gay guys, especialy older ones, about how little it takes to set off 'gay panic' in some men.

          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            auapplemac
            I think he was a predator because he's hanging out in a public restroom sexually "bothering" kids.

            Why believe that part? Why believe any part? I'm just taking the story as he said it, as everyone else here is. Actually, no, some people are making up details like it happened at school.

            Is it just as possible that the guy just looked at Tucker the wrong way? No, not really. He's hanging out in the bathroom. Tucker left, called the police, got a friend, came back, and he was still there. You're willing to make some weird logical leaps here.

            Just because Tucker is an asshole doesn't mean we have to interpret this in the least rational way in order to demonise him further. He's said enough stuff that's actually horrible that this really isn't necessary.

            If I do see one of my gay friends tomorrow, I'll ask what they think of this. Or maybe I'll just beat them up, because that's the kind of raging homophobe I am.

            •  Your defense (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DemDachshund, Aquarius40, WI Dem

              of Tucker rests on his second story but it is the first story that most are responding negatively to.

              That is why I question you on this.

              The "25 minutes later" bit is part of the second story...on-air he just he went back with a friend.  No mention of a long timespan.

              Just in the context of the first story, what I said was neither wierd nor a leap. It takes very little to set of gay panic in straight men.  A straight friend of mine was gay-bashed because he was observed hugging another man (his brother he hadn't seen in years).  I've been threatened with assault (of the gay-bash kind) just for being within a few blocks of a gay bar!  

              So no, I don't think it is weird or a leap to think it is just as likely Tucker could have been spooked by a look as he was groped.

              •  I agree with you (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aquarius40, Eric K, lgmcp, WI Dem

                I don't think we can trust anything from the second story as he came up with this better sounding stuff after he knew he was under fire.  If the guy was so violent towards him why didn't he say that the first time around as it is a pretty sensational aspect of the story?

                I, like you, am gay, and know about these bragging fratboy gaybasher type stories.  What Carlson was saying in the first story sounded all too much like that, not like a predator story.  Aumgn is sincere in being pro-gay, and theoretically could be in the right here.  But I hope he respects our experiences as actual gays who smell a rat here.  

                The only place where Republicans are anywhere close to responsible is in the dictionary.

                by DemDachshund on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:53:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DemDachshund, lgmcp

                  It is exactly as you say.  Tucker's first story sounds all too familiar.  They always try to cast a gay man as a pervert out to assault them, no matter what actually occured.  That's the essense of the atrocious 'gay panic' defense.

                  The second story of course sounds more reasonable, that's why MSNBC's legal department had their spokesperson send it to Media Matters.

                  Regardless of if the first story is true, the second one is, parts of them are or it is all made up, Tucker is still a dweeb and I think we can all agree on that.

                  •  It's long been known (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Eric K, WI Dem

                    people who change their stories aren't innocent.  I wish everyone on here could just figure out that that applies to this case too.

                    The only place where Republicans are anywhere close to responsible is in the dictionary.

                    by DemDachshund on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:13:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Especially given (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DemDachshund, WI Dem

                      the fact that it is common for gay-bashers to use the 'he was a pervert who tried to touch me first' line to defend themselves no matter what actually happened.  It is so common, it has a name: the 'homosexual panic' defense.

                      They do it because all too often it works.

                      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                        So if a teenage boy tells me a man in the bathroom was "bothering" him sexually, I should be extremely skeptical, or take it that the boy is being hypersensitive/intolerant about normal behavior, or what?
                    •  Did he change his story or elaborate? (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't know the truth. I wasn't there. BUT,

                      The man was still in the bathroom 25 minutes after the initial incident. What's up with that? Why was he hanging around? I can think of better places to spend my time.

                      Dubya: often wrong, but never in doubt.

                      by auapplemac on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 05:31:40 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well we know he was there for sex (0+ / 0-)

                        but the fact that most of us wouldn't want to have sex in an icky restroom doesn't mean the ones that do deserve to be beat up by young Republican thugs.  

                        If he's just elaborating, he is certainly elaborating in ways that conveniently make the episode look more justified.... after he knew he was under attack for the first version.  Hence our suspicion.  :)

                        The only place where Republicans are anywhere close to responsible is in the dictionary.

                        by DemDachshund on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:18:58 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                I think I'm going crazy.

                My defence has to do with the guy being predatory because he is hanging around a bathroom "bothering" teenagers sexually. The part of the story that contained the horrible violence also contained the part about him being gone long enough to get a friend and alert the police.

                Again: The violence and the time span are part of the same story. He didn't say 25 minutes the first time, but there was enough time to alert the police and get a friend.

                What you are saying is completely illogical, and contrived to make a worst-case scenario. Your anecdotes about actual gay-bashing are striking in how different they are to this situation.

                •  there you go again (0+ / 0-)

                  with the unwarrented assumptions in defense of Tucker.

                  It could take as little as a few seconds to get a friend who was with you.  For all you or I know the friend was right outside waiting for Tucker to finish peeing or whatever.

                  The police bit was ONLY from the second story, not from both as you imply.

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --

                    ABRAMS: And did what?

                    CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!

                    [laughter]

                    CARLSON: And then the cops came and arrested him. But let me say that I'm the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet --

                    This is from the story on TV. The cops are in the story. You are just completely wrong.

                    •  read it again (0+ / 0-)

                      He summoned the cops in the second story, in the first, they simply appeared.

                      Do you seriously expect me to think the cops took his report seriously but waited half an hour to arrest him?

                      I'm sorry, but I think the cops would have made him stay with them until they got the guy.

                      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                        So you think that's how it went down? The cops just appeared?

                        Come to think of it, he never says he actually WALKED back to the bathroom. Maybe he teleported.

                        This is why I questioned your functional literacy below. Here you said that there were no police in the first story, which is just completely incorrect. And here you say the cops just "appeared" and it's silly to assume Carlson called them.

                        If the 25 minutes thing sounds weird, it doesn't really matter. I can believe that if you call the cops about something like this it could take 25 minutes. Or what the 25 minutes covers. Did it start with the incident, and then he called 5-10 minutes later, after walking to a pay phone? No idea. Irrelevant.

                        •  see my post below 'The problem is' (0+ / 0-)

                          you are corect he mentioned cops in the first story.  He changed them to security guards in the second.  

                          There is no need to be insulting, there are likely explanations why security would show up later, such as sounds from fight in a bathroom or someone else sumoning them or them happening upon it during a regular patrol.  None of that is 'crazy'.

                          The timeline is irrelevant now?  A little while ago it was central to your point.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            It's irrelevant whether it was 25 minutes or not, because we don't know when the 25 minutes are supposed to have started, and this is a story about something that happened 25 years ago, so how does he know how long it took.

                            It was only important to me to point out that he left and came back and the guy was still there. If Tucker left for 5 seconds, he explained it in an awfully strange way. A little bit of time is implied by "came back".

                          •  If you are taking Tucker's own words (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WI Dem

                            then we do know:

                            I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.

                            So, the assault happened, he ran off and THEN 25 minutes later he went back to the restroom with his friend.

                            And yes, the fact that this was 25 years ago and Tucker has it down to exactly 25 minutes is odd.  Either he's full of shit or it was a very formative expereince for him that he casually mentioned today on national television but never before apparently.  Hmmm.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                            If this happened as he said it did, I imagine it would be a formative experience for him. And he seemed uncomfortable talking about it.
                          •  Oh please (0+ / 0-)

                            He was all excited about telling it!

                          •  Defending Tucker...yuck (0+ / 0-)

                            This person is defending Tucker, and I don't see anything getting in the way of that. You know, like ummm, Tucker's words. After all, this poster said this story was one of things that made Tucker tolerable to him. Huge red flag, don't you think? :-)

                            No Retreat Baby, No Surrender

                            by WI Dem on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 06:20:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is no knee-jerk Tuckerism (0+ / 0-)

                            This is a persistent, articulate, and relatively patient counter-argument to the effect that Kossacks may be over-reacting here.  Initially I too was inclined to bristle at Augmns's top post, but after observing the lengthy dialog I've got to say that pointing out an alternative interpretation to the story may be a needed counterbalance.

                            "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

                            by lgmcp on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 06:40:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Same guy?? (0+ / 0-)

                Something quite significant is being missed in all these comments. How could Tucker have possible known that the guy he attacked was the same guy who "bothered" him? He didn't see this guy's face or even his clothing, right? Hmmm, that's a little strange I think. Oh wait, I'm sure they will try to say that Tucker knew what the guy's shoes looked like, or some lame excuse. His whole story sounds like one lie after another.

                No Retreat Baby, No Surrender

                by WI Dem on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 06:13:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  If I've Misjudged You I Apologize (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lgmcp

          And you should reconsider making statements like violence is to be expected.

          Fair enough?

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            Perhaps you should not make snap judgments about people who disagree with you. Calling me a bigot or a moron, for example. I don't know how you think you're helping your cause, whatever it is, by calling people who are likely on your side bigots.

            And there's a difference between expecting and condoning violence. But again, when the "victim" is a guy hanging around a public bathroom "bothering" underage boys, I'm not sure how what I said could be considered outrageous in any way.

            •  "hanging around" and multiple victims now? (0+ / 0-)

              You get so mad at others for assuming things but your point rests on one assumption based on nothing Tucker said (boys, plural) and on assuming Tucker's SECOND, asscovering story about waiting 25+ minutes before reporting anything is accurate or likely.

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                I responded to this below. He left, alerted the police, got a friend, and went back. The guy was still there. I'm not making much of an assumption. Maybe he was constipated, I have no idea. But your functional literacy is becoming questionable.

                •  ah fun, resorting to personal insults now n/t (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Usually The Slams Come BEFORE The Apology (0+ / 0-)

                    I guess I can retract any misgivings I had about an anger management problem.

                    I carefully worded myself so as not to declare you a bigot, but suggest that your comments teeter on the brink.

                    •  come again? (0+ / 0-)

                      So, to clarify: I question someone's functional literacy after he makes the demonstrably false claim that there were no police in the first story, and I have anger management problems.

                      You say I hate gay people and am a bigoted moron, and what?

                      •  Well, if we're going to clarify (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        WI Dem

                        I suggested possible bigotry and anger problems when you stated that it was "expected" that high school kids resort to violence against gay people who make a pass at them.  For the record, the proper channel if there's actually a violation is to call and wait for the police.

                        You called someone illiterate because they missed a sentence in a paragraph.

                        You see the disparity?

                        •  carefully worded my ass (0+ / 0-)
                          Again, you see no difference between "expected" and "condone". And you don't make the textual link with me "expecting" the violence, and the situation in question involving harrassment or groping in a public restroom.

                          I know the police are the right option, but again, I'm telling you what I "expect" from a teenage boy, not what the right thing to do is.

                          I called someone functionally illiterate, yes, because they were passionately making arguments about which they seemed to have not done any research at all. Indeed, he didn't quote the transcript, he quoted a summary of the transcript that didn't mention the critical information.

                          You, in response to my polite initial post, said that I hate gay people, and that I was a bigoted moron with anger management issues. So, yeah, I do see the disparity.

    •  Legit to fire Carlson for joking about hate crime (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, davidkc, Eric K, 59stevenm

      Would it be legit if he was reminiscing fondly over beating up a black kid for talking to his sister? A Latino? An Asian.

      The context, laughing about it on public show, is good reason to fire him.

      "But he told a stupid story that is probably partially or wholly untrue..."

      He claims it was true story but that misses the point, even if he made it up to get laugh about his fantasy hate crime, pretty much the same deal.  On TV advocating hate crimes.

      Typically guys that assault gays have sexual identity issues which they hope to hide by acting out.

      Saw this with Craig with his over the top anti-gay rhetoric and legislation while he's cruising mens rooms.

      Saw this with Vitter, morality speechs while frolicking with hookers.

    •  O'Reilly and the like? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WI Dem

      I'd challenge anyone on the right to call this an "overreaction" when the entire basis of this debate is whether or not Tucker Carlson was in the right all those years ago when he decided to assault someone a half hour after they approached... sorry, attacked... him.  I think homophobia and violence are a bit more of an overreaction than quotes and discussion.

      It would do them all well to join in the debate. It's been going on for years, they've just been ignoring it.

    •  Oh, my, what will visitors think! (11+ / 0-)

      You may have an argument in your post, but this stuff:

      I very rarely post, but with the recent attention to  DailyKos via O'Reilly and the like, I'd hate for Republican visitors to see diaries like this and think all progressives are this illogically reactionary.

      Goodness gracious! What will the neighbors say?

      Frankly, I couldn't give a flying fuck what visiting Republicans might think. I hope more than anything else they will think that here's a crew that is going to take them on directly, instead of cowering in a corner, fearful that something we say or do will give the other side the wrong impression or supply them with ammunition. The O'Reillys of the world are going to cherrypick what they want, anyway. Or haven't you noticed that?

      There is nothing wrong with this diary.

      Tucker Carlson is a cowardly, pathetic spoiled brat. A punk.  The fact that he had to run and get a friend tells you all you need to know about him.

      And if some rightwing visitor doesn't like it, tough shit.

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        Well, if I have a point in the rest of the comment, I think we should care of nonsense like this is the most recommended diary.

        My point was that this crap demeans the actual meaning of a hate crime, and reinforces the idea that when progressives stand up for gay rights, they're standing up for the hypothetical predator in Carlson's story. People in this diary and comments section are refusing to draw a line between what Carlson described, and being homosexual. A man hangs out in a park bathroom bothering high school kids, and when a kid hits him in the head after calling the police, he should be prosecuted under Hate Crimes Legislation. Bullshit.

    •  You make some unwarranted assumptions here. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, davidkc, Eric K, WI Dem, jayden

      First of all, where do you get the "predator" information?  My take on Carlson's story was the person who propositioned him was another pimply teenager just like himself.  After all, who do we typically find in high-school restrooms?  

      Second of all, the groping was an after-thought of Carlson's and clearly (in my opinion) a lie.  What happened was a verbal invitation. If a single unwanted invitation from a peer justifies violence, then I hope to see a LOT of high-school girls beating up guys outside school, or, since it's okay in your view to come back with a posse, having their friends beat 'em up.    

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:08:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp

        I assume "predator" from the fact that he's hitting on high school kids in a park restroom, and the fact that he was still in the bathroom after Carlson got his friend and called the police. I could be jumping to conclusions, but we don't know all the facts of Carlson's likely bullshit story, so I have to come down on predator or not a predator. Sounds like a predator.

        And again, was this a high school? I know Carlson was in high school at the time, but I don't think this happened at the school.

        I don't know if Carlson just made up the groping or not. I assume he did, and I assume he made up the hitting the guy's head part too. I said predators deserve a knock in the head, not that people should go out and do it. The point is, a guy shouldn't be fired for telling a bullshit anecdote where he, as a kid, hit a guy in the head for "bothering" him in a public bathroom.

        •  Oh, these are facts now? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DemDachshund

          I thought this was just Tucker's new story... I didn't know we had already established them as facts.

          But yeah, he shouldn't be fired but he deserves a full round of criticism and mocking for it.

          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            auapplemac

            [rolling eyes]

            Yeah, I'm taking what he said as "facts" in the context of the story. The things I refer to as "facts" are from his first story, Eric K. That he was a high school kid in a public bathroom, and that the guy was hanging around there for some time.

            For Christ's sake people, a little rational thought goes a long way. I mean, Eric K, what you're saying here doesn't even make sense. I'm taking as "facts" the same thing all of these reactionary people are taking as fact when they talk about bullshit like getting police reports and starting letter writing campaigns.

            Get a grip.

            •  No, you are cherry-picking (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DemDachshund, Aquarius40, WI Dem

              "facts" from both of Tucker's stories.

              •  asfd (0+ / 0-)

                No, again, what you're saying is patently wrong. I'm taking all of the "facts" from all of his stories. Read what I wrote for God's sake. In the post you referred to, I quoted as "fact" elements from his first story, just as every other goddamn person in this thread. In other replies, I've taken as fact the elements from his second story. What of it? There's no cherry-picking here.

                But if you read the rest of this thread, you have people making shit up like it happened at school, or assuming the other person could have been a teenager, or just a guy who looked at him the wrong way. I'm taking his first story and his second story at face value and saying there's nothing here to get worked up about because of the logical implications of what he's saying, if it's true. Other people here are inventing details to support their stupid narrative. Why don't you reply to those guys?

                •  The one guy who did that (0+ / 0-)

                  already retracted and apologized so I saw no need to reply to him.

                  My point still stands though, (given that we aren't trusting Tucker 100% here right?) it is just as likley it wasn't assault at all but was flirting that Tucker didn't like for whatever reason.  The rest of his story, about cops/security and fights/holding may well be pure invention.

                  IF this story has a kernel of truth, why is it crazy to suggest that kernel is that he got cruised on a restroom once and it made him feel bad, end of story?

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    So rather than give an example of my cherry-picking, you're asking why it's crazy to cherry-pick the worst possible kernel of truth? Yeah, this is a discussion that's not a waste of time.

                    READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY: In the first story, we are told of a man who is hanging out in a public restroom sexually "bothering" teenagers. Nothing else in Tucker's stories is particularly offensive, given that.

                    But go ahead and cherry-pick the worst possible narrative for this bullshit letter campaign. That's an awesome use of our time and resources.

                    •  You just did it again (0+ / 0-)

                      the 'hanging out' part came with the second story.  It wasn't part of the first.  This is what he said:

                      I've been bothered in men's rooms." Carlson continued, "I've been bothered in Georgetown Park," in Washington, D.C., "when I was in high school." When Abrams asked how Carlson responded to being "bothered," Carlson asserted, "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and ... hit him against the stall with his head, actually."

                      He said he 'went back', no timeframe mentioned here.

                      Teenagers?  plural?  not even Tucker said that, in either story...now you are making assumptions for him.

                      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        auapplemac

                        CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --

                        ABRAMS: And did what?

                        CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!

                        [laughter]

                        CARLSON: And then the cops came and arrested him. But let me say that I'm the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet --

                        There's the full quote.

                        So Carlson leaves, alerts the police, gets a friend, goes back. Guess what? Guy's still there. That's a long shit, I guess.

                        And maybe you're right. He "bothered" one teenager, but he wouldn't "bother teenagers. I'm so crazy with my assumptions.

                        •  It says (0+ / 0-)

                          ..."and then the cops came"...he doesn't say he personally went to summon them and if he did they would likely be WITH HIM not coming after he and his friend went back to the bathroom and had a fight.

                          And again, the point isn't that your assumption is 'crazy' but that it is as assumption, not something even CLAIMED by Tucker, and it no more or less 'crazy' than assuming Tucker made it up based on a much more benign actual incident.

                          Why it is you think some guy going nuts over another guy just cruising him is crazy is beyond me, happens in real life all the time.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            Okay, maybe the cops just materialised out of nowhere. What is more logical? That Carlson phoned the police, or that they just were in the area and had to use the bathroom at the park after this incident? Tell me where you think they came from. Carlson is clearly implying that he alerted the police one way or another. Give me a fucking break. If you tell a story where someone is harassing you in the bathroom, and then later the police come, you are implying that the police are there  because you alerted them.

                            Or maybe the other guy called the police because Tucker Carlson is a testosterone-fueled violent homophobe, but then they mistakenly ARRESTED the wrong guy. Could be.

                            I can easily believe a guy would go crazy when he's just hit on, but that has little to do with this story as it's presented in any version.

                          •  The problem is (0+ / 0-)

                            Tucker changed the story and the cops became security guards.  He doesn't say if he called them or found them or if the cops/gurads found him or were called over by someone else or what. You are just assuming he called them.

                            If they were park security guards, they may well have been nearby and may well have been responding to reports about or sounds of a fight in the bathroom.  Or to tkae your point-of-view, maybe the bathroom was known for 'cruisy' activitiy and they regularly patrolled it.  That is common.

                            Let me ask you this: if you were assaulted, found some cops and reported it to them and they believed you, do you think they would then just let you wander off?  I don't think so.

                            This is the main point I'm making though:

                            I think all these possibilites are at least as likely as Tucker's stories, especially given the discrepencies between the two stories and the pressure he likely felt, first to be thought of as a he-man, and second to try to quell a shitstorm.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            Fine, Tucker changed the story and they became security guards. No, he doesn't say he called them or found them, or if they found him. But going off the story from TV, he left, got his friend from wherever, and then police (or later guards) came. Whatever. The guy was still there. A guy who sexually "bothers" teenage boys in a park bathroom. That's the point. That's why this diary is completely misguided.

                            As you yourself say at the end, you can make up all kinds of narratives for this, so there's no reason to assume the worst, as is being done here, to get excited and pissed off and try to get the guy fired.

                            And one more time: the original story is of a man sexually bothering a teenager in a bathroom who is still there after Tucker leaves and comes back. A little time can be assumed here, because if you step outside for three seconds to get your friend, you don't talk about "coming back".

                            Incidentally, if I've come off as irritated, it's because the first response was some guy who thinks he can tell if somebody is a "bigoted moron" through a reasonable internet posting, and second because I'm not making anything but the most reasonable assumptions based on Tucker's story.

                          •  Okay then (0+ / 0-)

                            Whatever. The guy was still there.

                            Claims Tucker, certainly...and now he says it was 25 minutes later, but that is no more likley than it was 20 seconds later.

                            A guy who sexually "bothers" teenage boys in a park bathroom.

                            And what does that mean?  Tucker claims assault in his ass-covering second story but for all you know all the guy (if indeed this guy even exists) did was cruise or say 'hey cutie' to him.  That sounds more 'bothersome' to me than an acutal physical assualt which goes beyond a mere 'bother' to most people I'd think.

                            As you yourself say at the end, you can make up all kinds of narratives for this, so there's no reason to assume the worst, as is being done here, to get excited and pissed off and try to get the guy fired.

                            There is some reason to assume to worst, as much as there is to assume to best actually.  If you were gay you might understand that but you not having personally experienced how easily some staright (or closeted self-haters) can get violent over benign or mistaken things I guess I understand why you might feel that is crazy talk.  However, I ask that you try to see it from our point of view.

                            A little time can be assumed here, because if you step outside for three seconds to get your friend, you don't talk about "coming back".

                            What would you say?  I guess 'went back in' would be most likely but still, I see no reason why a long timeapan is more likely than a short one.  In fact, if I was assaulted and was of a temperment to beat the assaulter up (with backup), I would have hurried back to make sure he didn't get away.  Maybe Tucker just doesn't have his he-man act down yet thought.

                            I'm not making anything but the most reasonable assumptions based on Tucker's story.

                            First of all, assuming Tucker is being truthful at all is a fatal mistake, I'd say.  My first assumption is that he's full of it and the rest flows from there.  I expect my assumtions make more sense in that context, no?

                            They may seems most reasonable to you, but what I'm saying is that the real life expereinces I have had and knowing from friends similar experiences, the most reasonable assumption I make is that Tucker is lying and trying to boost his cred with his 'alpha male' buds by saying he beat up a queer.  I've heard this story many, many times.

                          •  we'll try to wrap this up... ;-) (0+ / 0-)

                            Claims Tucker, certainly...and now he says it was 25 minutes later, but that is no more likley than it was 20 seconds later.

                            Well, I think it's a little more likely, but that's just my opinion. You kind of concede this below by saying that "went back in" is what a normal person would say if he just stepped out to get his friend. It's a subconscious choice of language that implies a little time.

                            And what does that mean?  Tucker claims assault in his ass-covering second story but for all you know all the guy (if indeed this guy even exists) did was cruise or say 'hey cutie' to him.  That sounds more 'bothersome' to me than an acutal physical assualt which goes beyond a mere 'bother' to most people I'd think.

                            Well, if you're a teenage boy, and a man in a bathroom says "hey cutie", that's a bit much. Sorry.

                            There is some reason to assume to worst, as much as there is to assume to best actually.  If you were gay you might understand that but you not having personally experienced how easily some staright (or closeted self-haters) can get violent over benign or mistaken things I guess I understand why you might feel that is crazy talk.  However, I ask that you try to see it from our point of view.

                            I don't need to be gay to be aware of this phenomenon of self-loathing gay homophobes. But I think I can point to DetroitMark as a nice example. I disagreed with this diary and was branded a hater of gays, and a bigoted moron (carefully chosen words my ass). I can at least be certain that he is looking for the worst case scenario (for Tucker). But we clearly agree that there are a lot of interpretations to this, and that is why this diary is so ridiculous. Oh, and don't forget, according to the original story, the man was arrested.

                            What would you say?  I guess 'went back in' would be most likely but still, I see no reason why a long timeapan is more likely than a short one.  In fact, if I was assaulted and was of a temperment to beat the assaulter up (with backup), I would have hurried back to make sure he didn't get away.  Maybe Tucker just doesn't have his he-man act down yet thought.

                            Yeah, "went back in" would be more likely if he wasn't out for a few minutes. Which is why I assume it. Because it is more likely.

                            First of all, assuming Tucker is being truthful at all is a fatal mistake, I'd say.  My first assumption is that he's full of it and the rest flows from there.  I expect my assumtions make more sense in that context, no?

                            They may seems most reasonable to you, but what I'm saying is that the real life expereinces I have had and knowing from friends similar experiences, the most reasonable assumption I make is that Tucker is lying and trying to boost his cred with his 'alpha male' buds by saying he beat up a queer.  I've heard this story many, many times.

                            If you want my actual opinion, Tucker never hit this guy, and there were no police or guards. The other guys were laughing at him and he made shit up. And the shit he made up isn't homophobic, because he's describing someone who sounds predatory.

                            By the way, thanks for not being an asshole like one other guy was, and like I flirted with being.... :-)

                          •  Okay, my last post on this then... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DemDachshund, lgmcp, WI Dem

                            Well, if you're a teenage boy, and a man in a bathroom says "hey cutie", that's a bit much. Sorry.

                            Yes, it is bothersome, it is not assault though, which was my point.  That is why I say it is likely that if anythign happened at all, it was way mroe benign than Tucker makes it out to be.

                            The 'he was a pervert who touched me/tried to touch me so I got enraged and hit him' line is a favorite of gay-bashers everywhere.  Common enough to have a name: "homosexual panic defense"

                            But we clearly agree that there are a lot of interpretations to this, and that is why this diary is so ridiculous. Oh, and don't forget, according to the original story, the man was arrested.

                            Well, not really.  Tucker now says security guards came, not cops, and they can't arrest people.  Yes, the first story had the cops arresting him but even if that was true, it doesn't make him guilty.  Cops harrassing gay men who cruise in public is not unknown.

                            Agreed there are multiple interpretations possible but that is true with just about any story.  If we held off based on that, we'd precious few diaries at all...they'd all be cute cat pictures.

                            And the shit he made up isn't homophobic, because he's describing someone who sounds predatory.

                            Homophobes pretty much always make gays sound predatory in their stories no matter what the facts are.  It is one of the stock stereotypes.  As I said, I've heard this story many, many times.

                            I think he wanted to sound cool to his buds so he told some tall tale about beating up a queer, but then realized that was probably not a good idea on national television and hence we got his second story and this "not anti-gay in the slightest, but" line from him during the first story.  He was aware of how it was coming off.

                            But, we can agree to disagree, I doubt we are going to change each other's minds about this.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes, it is bothersome, it is not assault though, which was my point.  That is why I say it is likely that if anythign happened at all, it was way mroe benign than Tucker makes it out to be.

                            There's a breakdown in logic here. You gave about the most benign possible hypothetical example, said it wasn't assault, and then "that's why it's likely it was way more benign than Tucker makes it out to be." Huh? You're using a hypothetical situation you made up to draw logical conclusions about what Tucker must really be saying?

                            The 'he was a pervert who touched me/tried to touch me so I got enraged and hit him' line is a favorite of gay-bashers everywhere.  Common enough to have a name: "homosexual panic defense"

                            I have gay friends who flirt with me. I usually flirt back. Doesn't bother me at all. But if a stranger in a bathroom touched me in a way I felt was inappropriate, I would consider hitting him. Maybe you see nothing wrong with bothering guys sexually in a bathroom, but I do, and I don't connect that with a gay identity. And it's bad enough to warrant a knock in the head, in my opinion.

                            Well, not really.  Tucker now says security guards came, not cops, and they can't arrest people.  Yes, the first story had the cops arresting him but even if that was true, it doesn't make him guilty.  Cops harrassing gay men who cruise in public is not unknown.

                            I think security guards can restrain people until the police come. And so now am I to assume the guy bothering a teen in the bathroom is the victim?

                            Agreed there are multiple interpretations possible but that is true with just about any story.  If we held off based on that, we'd precious few diaries at all...they'd all be cute cat pictures.

                            Um, no. If Tucker is taken at his word in every aspect of this story, it's not a big deal. If only the first part is taken seriously, it's still not a big deal.

                            Tucker went on TV and told a story about a guy bothering him in a public restroom when he was a teenager. He came back and knocked him in the head, and in that story, the police arrested him. Not offended, me. I don't think most non-homophobes would be either. But apparently others were so offended by this that they have to start a big email campaign to get Tucker fired. It's stupid, sorry.

                            I think our main difference on this is that you're a lot more tolerant of men bothering teenagers in public bathrooms than I am. All Tucker says he did was hit the guys head against the stall, which is fair. If a woman slaps a man who grabs her ass or comes on to her aggressively in an awkward environment similar to a bathroom, is that so offensive?

                          •  sigh, one last time (0+ / 0-)

                            "Bothering" is simply not a word people ordinarily use to describe a sexual assault.  Tucker only later called it a physical assault AFTER MSNBC panicked about what he'd said on-air.

                            So, when Tucker said he was bothered, I took it to mean what it usually means, he was annoyed but not threatened.  So, please stop acting like I'm defending sexual assault. It is like if I was continually saying you favor slamming in the heads of guys who annoy you and I'm not doing that becasue I know that isn't what you mean since you are arguing from teh assault angle.  Please return the civility and take my arguments at face value and not plugging them into your assault scenario.  Thanks.

                            In that light, it is wrong to slam someone's head into a wall for annoying you, yes. Why that should be a controversial statement is beyond me.

                            Clearly MSNBC and Tucker himself reached the same conclusions I did, given subsequent actions on their part and attempts to change the story to upgrade bothering to physical assault and denying that Tucker slammed the guy's head or hurt him in any way.

                            If a woman slaps a man who grabs her ass or comes on to her aggressively in an awkward environment similar to a bathroom, is that so offensive?

                            Slapping someone on the spot is not the same as fetching a friend, waiting 25 minutes then going and slamming someone's head into a solid wall and you know it.

            •  And besides (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DemDachshund, WI Dem

              I already stated I agree with you this isn't a firing offence but he deserves scorn and ridicule for making up a stupid story or embellishing one to make himself look like a he-man.

              Labeling me a 'reactionary' based on that and on my personal, real-world expereinces as a gay man with homophobia is absurd.

        •  See below (0+ / 0-)

          I was wrong about the location; it WAS in the park, and thus more likely an habitual adult offender.

          I share your assumption that gross exaggerations pervade every aspect of Carlson's story.  

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:22:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Some holes in your assumptions (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aquarius40, Eric K, R Rhino from CT4

          If we are to believe Carlson's first version of the story is the true one, if either are, then Carlson was hit on nonviolently and not necessarily touched at all.  But he resorted to violence anyway.

          Did Carlson necessarily look underage?  Many high school students look like young adults.  By senior year many of them legally are.  We don't know if the guy was necessarily out to scam on teenagers specifically.  And in many states it's legal to have sex with someone 16 or older.  It's a jump to say that the guy is a predator trying to do statutory rape.  If that is an important part of the story, Carlson should explain that, because otherwise it just really sounds like a gay bashing.  

          If a straight guy hits on a girl that turns out, unbeknownst to him, to be slightly underage, should he be beat up.  If you say yes, then I think that's still an overreaction even if you don't have a homophobic double standard.  (yes I've read your posts about how much you support gay rights; its just seems unlikely someone would support the same punishment for the straight person)

          And I don't think you should assume that the person hitting on Tucker was above age.  I don't think that was ever implied at all, although it is quite likely I suppose.  

          The only place where Republicans are anywhere close to responsible is in the dictionary.

          by DemDachshund on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:47:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lgmcp

            First off, I like your signature.

            But you're doing the same shit others are doing, and making assumptions and cherry-picking. "Maybe Tucker looked older than 16!" He doesn't look fucking older than 16 now, first of all, and anyway, you're making goofy assumptions to defend a guy who's hanging out in bathrooms hitting on teenagers. Carlson doesn't need to explain anything more, because it doesn't sound like gay-bashing. As presented, every version of this story has made the other guy sound like a predator, unless you're assuming groundless facts to start a stupid letter-writing campaign.

            If a straight guy hits on a girl who turns out to be too young, should he be beat up? No. Neither should a gay gay hitting on a guy who turns out to be too young. A guy bothering/assaulting teenagers in a bathroom? Sure, he deserves it.

            So to recap, I shouldn't assume logical things like this was an older guy, or that a guy hanging out in a bathroom bothering teenagers is a predator, but I should consider that maybe the extremely young-looking Tucker Carlson looked old when he was young?

            •  Talk about embellishing (3+ / 0-)

              So you can expand the story beyond what even Tucker asserted in either story but any of our assumptions are crazy.  um, okay.

            •  You're still assuming he was hitting on teens (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aquarius40, Eric K

              intentionally.  And trying to justify Tucker's actions based on that.  I don't think Tucker looks much younger than he is and wouldn't have necessarily looked underage when he was slightly underage.  It seems like you may be assuming something predatory and underage-oriented must be going on because this is a restroom?  Not necessarily; some people go there for consensual sex and aren't forcing anyone to do anything.  

              Regardless of who is right or wrong, you or me, it's Tucker who has the explaining to do and hasn't done it consistently or believably yet.  And Kossacks have the right to ask for some accountability from such a public figure.  So I really think it is best for you to go after him about it rather than us.  

              You're welcome on the sig, I came up with it myself.  

              The only place where Republicans are anywhere close to responsible is in the dictionary.

              by DemDachshund on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:08:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                Why wouldn't I assume that? He was intentionally bothering/hitting on/assaulting a teenager. So I should be getting pissed off and calling for Carlson's head because maybe he looked older than he was, when again, most people would say he looks very young now?

                I assume this is underage-oriented because the boy involved was underage. I know, I know, it's a leap, but I'll stand by it. And again, I really have very little sympathy for people soliciting sex for strangers in public bathrooms, and especially from teenagers.

                Tucker has no explaining to do to me. Obviously he needs to write up an extraordinarily detailed write-up to get the reactionaries off his back, including, apparently, a picture of himself as a teenager, so that we know what happened to him was fair game. Really, there's no way he could explain this enough so that he'd be left alone.

                •  I guess part of our difference here (0+ / 0-)

                  Is that I don't think people deserve to be beat up simply for (perhaps quite unthreateningly) hitting on people in a restroom.  So I guess we'll agree to disagree on that.  

                  But despite not being the one in favor of the violence, I'm the reactionary for simply wanting some answers from what sounds like an inconsistent story that started off sounding like classic macho gaybashing being celebrated on television.  

                  I'm glad you've been willing to talk it through.  

                  The only place where Republicans are anywhere close to responsible is in the dictionary.

                  by DemDachshund on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:16:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Again, Carlson said he was a man not (0+ / 0-)

        a "pimply faced kid" or a kid of any kind. Kids usually refer to "grown-ups" as men or women. They don't refer to their peers as such.

        Dubya: often wrong, but never in doubt.

        by auapplemac on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 05:39:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Two stories (5+ / 0-)

      Tucker is telling two stories.  Most of the reaction is to the first, where some guy supposedly 'bothered' him (flirted with him?  touched him?  who knows?  makes a big difference though, no?) and he bashed his head against a wall.  

      This story was told to make it seem like Tucker is a manly, tough heterosexual who is not at all gay, no sir, NOT gay at all.

      The second story is lawyer-panic driven ass-covering but it is at least less stupid as it makes his actions as both less violent (held vs. hit the man) and as more appropriate (in response to an actual assault, rather than some vague 'bother').

      But again, the reaction here that bothers (assaults?) you is to the first story which was about Tucker being a stud (which is admittedly laughable and so you may be right about what exactly the other stooges were laughing at).

    •  Someone tells a story like this in a bar with his (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      praedor, WI Dem

      pals, and it's just offensive, and you are right, it's stupid.

      This guy is on a network program, and he is supposedly a journalist ["gag"].

      Try again, sunshine.

      ---------

      oh, and to "any Republicans viewing this", you can all go fuck yourselves .. just passing along the wisdom of YOUR Vice President.  

      socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

      by shpilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:50:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's my lettter, penned just after Carlson's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, WI Dem

    semi-retraction.

    Dear MSNBC,

    I was deeply disturbed by Tucker Carlson account of a high-school incident where he was "bothered" by a homosexual invitation in the boy's bathroom.  According to the transcript of Carlson's first account

    CARLSON: "I went back with someon I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --
    ABRAMS: And did what?
    CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!

    This returned to physically assault the propositioner is a pre-meditated assault and a hate crime.  It is disgustingly offensive that Carlson as an adult would brag about such behavior and that Abrams would condone it.  This kind of thinking is on the same slippery slope that led 3 men in Wyoming to murder Matthew Shepherd and attempt the legally-discredited "gay panic defense".

    Now, I understand, Carlson has issued a statement describing the long-ago incident very differently, as including a physical assault from the propositioner and non-violent restraint upon his deliberate return.  First of all, I am very sceptical of the dramatic difference between Carlson's original and amended accounts.  I think it is extremely likely that he unduly exaggerated his "tough guy" response in the first account, but unduly minimized his homophobic hostility in the second account.  But, let us assume, for the sake of arguement, that Carlson's clarification is entirely accurate.

    In that case, he owes it to all MSNBC viewers who witnessed the original hateful brag, to fully retract.  He needs to explain that first of all, he did NOT violently assault the other boy as claimed, and that if he did, it would have been very wrong, and he needs to explain WHY it would be wrong.  

    After all, if Carlson is sincere in his protestations that he "is not anti-gay in the slightest", then he should be eager to rectify any encouragement he may have inadvertently created for hate crimes.

    Thank you for your consideration.  
    Regards,
    lgmcp

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:54:08 PM PDT

  •  Tucker (0+ / 0-)

    has to be the stupidest talk show host out there. His guests actually laugh at him because he draws inexplicable conclusions from their patiently explained analysis.

    That said, I don't think Tucker is necessarily anti-gay, but I do think he's a bit of a closet case or is hiding something--he keeps saying "shouldn't people's personal lives be off limits?" when it's pretty well established that it's appropriate for newspapers to investigate rumors about elected officials (that's called journalism, btw). He also keep saying that he's not gay--he protests a bit too much.

    He also doesn't seem to get that politicians who are certain kinds of hypocrits, e.g., those who are closet cases themselves but vote for legislation that harms gays and lesbians, pretty much deserve what they get when they are outed.

  •  Hold up! (0+ / 0-)

    Tucker's punk azz couldn't fight the guy on his own!
    He had to call in some backup???

    What a punk azz!

  •  If I'd Met Tucker in High School (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, lgmcp, FishBiscuit, 59stevenm

    I'd have hit on him too.

    He's so obviously a screaming closeted mo.

    We had a kid named Rick in our class that wore a bow tie just like his.  Rick taught me all kinda' naughty stuff.

  •  Mail sent (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    munky, lgmcp, Leo in NJ

    The best address, I believe, is this one:

    abramsreport@msnbc.com

    Let 'em have it.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:01:12 PM PDT

  •  You don't have a right to fight back after you've (8+ / 0-)

    gotten to safety.  I mean- if someone tries to kill you and you get away- you can't legally go get a gun, go back and then murder the guy.  That's what police are for.

    Imagine that- a Republican thinking he can operate outside of societal law.

    I'd rather be unhappy with Hillary than miserable with Giuliani.

    by electricgrendel on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:09:15 PM PDT

  •  As Atrios Pointed Out (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mint julep, Aquarius40, munky, WI Dem

    Brave old Tucker had to go and get a friend so the two of them could double team the poor guy.  And, as Atrios noted, what would Tucker's response be if women started getting together to beat the shit out of guys who "bother them" in public?  There'd be no end to violence then.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:18:49 PM PDT

  •  I thought gay people... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mint julep, Neon Mama

    had better taste than to hit on Tucker Carlson.

  •  Even Imus didn't say something pro-violence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WI Dem

    when he got fired.  This is obviously worse (although I'm sure we'll see the media/society double standard at work as homophobia is so much more ok than other bigotries).  He needs to be fired and never work in media again.  The ones who laughed along should be fired too.  

    The only place where Republicans are anywhere close to responsible is in the dictionary.

    by DemDachshund on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:20:39 PM PDT

  •  "OverReaction" = "Closet Case" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BDA in VA, munky, WI Dem

    in my book.  Research has shown many times that the most homophobic are usually compensating for supressed urges.  He's just a product of the same repressive stock that produces self-hating hyper-masculine "family" men like Craig.  When are people going to realize their policies are creating mental illness in these poor people?

    As far as I'm concerned, the high point of Tucker's career was when Jon Stewart referred to him as a "dick"...

  •  My Letter to Dan Abrams (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pr Halios, ohcanada, WI Dem

    Thank you, Louise. You hit just the right note of outrage and disgust in your diary.

    The Abrams Report
    abramsreport@msnbc.com

    What an embarrassment to you and an insult to your viewers were Tucker Carlson and his bragging about an assault he committed.

    His disingenuous explanation today now makes him a liar as well. Last night he said he had been "bothered," not assaulted. Last night, Tucker said he "slammed his head against a wall," not that he detained him for the police. Does Tucker assault everyone who "bothers" him--panhandlers? windshield washers? bag ladies--in this manner? Seems that a video store clerk in Georgetown might agree that he does.

    And we wonder why gay teenagers get tortured and killed out West. Could it be because of people like Tucker Carlson and his bragging about slamming a gay person against a wall on MSNBC? And then guffawing about it with his boss on MSNBC?

    This is disgusting. Abrams was disgusting last night. He owes an apology too. Scarborough? Hopeless.

    You should thank the good Lord everyday for Keith Olbermann. And your penance is to fire a hate-mongering idiot before he does more damage.

  •  How can we expect anything better from a guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WI Dem

    who includes the word "retarded" in his working vocabulary, as though it were an acceptable word to toss around.  Calling him a pundit does a disservice to the term.  He's more of a . . . more of just a "dit."

    TVL-WCO&STS: Meeting your conspiracy and adhesive needs with Jack and a Beck's back

    by blogpotato on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:26:57 PM PDT

  •  Keep writing and calling (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WI Dem, R Rhino from CT4

    It is time to get rid of this horrible disgusting loser...All that dissing of Pat Fitzgerald without ever disclosing his daddy was on the funding end of the Libby defense fund......HE MUST GO NOW.......

  •  Fire.... (0+ / 0-)

    Let's just fire the entire network of MSNBC.

    "I used to be Snow White, but I drifted."

    by pere on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:28:10 PM PDT

  •  If his cliarification is true... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beowulf

    I see nothing wrong with what he did. It sounds like he was being preyed upon and acted in self-defense.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" -8.25, -7.54

    by dem4evr on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:30:03 PM PDT

    •  so, it's OK to get on the airwaves and (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Louise, Eric K, WI Dem, maralenenok

      brag about bashing the head in of someone who 'bothered' you, have a chuckle and gaffaw, and then when called on it, make the story fit more acceptable themes?

      If my kid something like that, told a story to make himself look like a "big man" when he was 6 or 7, I'd pull him aside and say 'you shouldn't make things up to make yourself feel good' and to him to go to his room. If he was 13, I'd ground him. If he was 17, I'd take away the car keys for a while.

      How old is Tucker Carlson and his 'pals'?
      Is this responsible 'journalism'? Is this the example one should set for the viewers [all three of them] that watch his pathetic show?

      socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

      by shpilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:45:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's a big IF (0+ / 0-)

      sure his clarification sounds better (he was assaulted, not just 'bothered', he didn't hit the guy, just held him until authorities came) but maybe, jsut maybe that is becasued it was designed to.

      I mean, consider the source, it came from a MSNBC spokesperson after they caught shit for Tucker's original comments and then the went ahead and purged his original comments from the segment (the part about hitting the guy anyway).

      Let's pretend this story has nothing to do with gay guys and sex but Tucker said somethign about, say, beating up a black, alleged drug dealer who bothered him and then in the ensuing shitstorm, MSNBC 'clarified' that the guy assaulted him first and he just held him until security arrived...would you buy it?

  •  Tucker has, no doubt, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    munky, 59stevenm

    embellished the story. He ran from the the men's room whimpering, clutching his woody.

  •  He's right, you're wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beowulf, Aumgn

    An older man approached and assaulted a teenage boy in a men's room. Sounds like it could have escalated to rape or at least sexual assault since the man had already committed physical assault on a child. He and his friend then detained the man until the authorities arrived.

    As a woman if anyone, male of female, did that to me I would have reacted in much the same way. The only difference is that I lack Tucker's physical strength.

    Stop looking for reasons to bash the right. There are plenty of more legitimate things to object to and frankly, you do us no favor with this manufactured outrage of yours.

    Grow up.

    "Freedom of speech isn't something somebody else gives you. That's something you give to yourself." - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

    by brenda on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:35:45 PM PDT

  •  Firing is a little extreme I think (0+ / 0-)

    I think an apology would do just fine. We can't very well fire everyone who offends us. Maybe that's just me though. But if his explanation is truly 100% accurate, and some guy grabbed his ass against his will, then so be it, I would kick a guys ass if he grabbed below my waist too. That said, there's no reason to brag and have a laugh about it, on national tv for that matter.

    Technically I didn't see it though. So maybe I'm wrong. I just don't think anyone needs to be fired for one, or several, mistakes like this one. An apology would be more appropriate I think.

    Ahhh...Bush vetoed the stem cell bill AGAIN! Maybe one of these days I'll walk again when a Dem is made Pres...Some day...

    by RetreatHell on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:41:05 PM PDT

  •  Tucker, just another little punk (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WI Dem, Bronx59

    who gets paid to shill. Hannity is one too. So's O'lie ly.

  •  All you have is (0+ / 0-)

    Tucker's story, so if he says the guy grabbed him, then who's to say that's not what happened?  It was actually brave to go back and confront the guy and wait for security, supposing that's what happened.  What's disgusting is Scarborough and Abrams goading him into telling it and laughing, that's what i got from the video.  To be honest, someone might be able to find the old police report based on the information at hand.  TSG?

    •  there would be a police report IF (0+ / 0-)

      it happened anywhere but in the dreams of the dreamer

    •  Tucker didn't say that. At first. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, SharaiP, WI Dem, maralenenok

      At first he said he was "bothered."  And then he got a friend, went back and bashed the guy's head into the bathroom stall.

      Now that this story has caused an uproar, Carlson is claiming he was "assaulted" instead of "bothered," and that he and his friend "restrained" the man instead of beat his head into a wall.  On top of that, he's portraying himself as a hero for taking down a predator.

      I'll tell you what--if you believe Carlson's new story, I've got many bridges to sell you, and none of them in a state of disrepair, nosiree...

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:41:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Carlson has always been pompous ass (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SharaiP

    pretending at political commentary. Smug. Self-serving. Vastly overrated.

    "We do not torture." - George Bush during recent Asian visit

    by Flippant to the Last on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:51:14 PM PDT

  •  He never beat anyone up, the liar! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    praedor, Scout Finch, sawgrass727

    Let me tell you something: Tucker Carlson never beat anyone up in high school.

    Tucker Carlson was the guy getting beat up in high school.

    It's a lie he told to impress the other two guys.

    What a pile of crap.

    And where the hell is his son playing soccer that guys are hitting on him?

    What a lying sack  

  •  The real question to ask is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, SharaiP, WI Dem

    Why was this story presented in this way?

    Perhaps there was no deliberation about it, but the implied intent of the telling of the story is quite clear. This story never would have been told if Larry Craig's story had never hit the airwaves.

    So, planned or not, the implied intent of this story is to intimidate people, to condone or excuse or wave off violence against people as acceptable because they are soliciting.

    It's a variation on the same crap that Limbaugh, Coulter and O'Reilly spew on a regular basis; encouraging violence, condoning intimidation and hatred.

    socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

    by shpilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:10:15 PM PDT

  •  One major reason why gays remain in the closet (0+ / 0-)

    n/t

  •  Sorry I missed this diary 'til now... (0+ / 0-)

    Tucker's dad ran public television for a decade.  He's the TV epitome of a trust fund baby.  His boss should be asked why he is even on the air to begin with.  He has no ratings, even Charles Grodin got fired way before this length of time.

    Sometimes, out of the most ordinary looking vessel can flow the most extraordinary wine.

    by normcash on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:26:36 PM PDT

  •  It was an assault ... (0+ / 0-)

    on Tucker's carefully crafted image of himself as a heterosexual. It  did severe damage to that image. Perhaps it was an injury he never recovered from.

    But it's unlikely that it was the kind of assault that  would have put his "attacker" behind bars ... though, it seems, Tucker should have been.

    My goodness! The ultimate in media diversity! We have a real live gay basher ensconced at MSNBC! < /snark >

    "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

    by Glinda on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:34:50 PM PDT

  •  Slippery language (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Louise, totallynext

    He said what he said. And the image he portrayed is certainly different than his retooled follow up.

    I think the DailyKos makes his nervous. Good.

    Privatization is merely a euphemism for what was once called fascism.

    by SpiffPeters on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:38:11 PM PDT

  •  Tucker Carlson is full of it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AWhitneyBrown, sawgrass727, ohcanada, alba

    Either the incident happened to someone else or he was "approached" and did nothing about it.  He was obviously trying to overcompensate for something.  Talk about effete and elite snobs.  That being said any adult who comes unto a minor is a pedophile and deserves a beating.  Since I am against gay bashing, I will no longer trash Tucker in this comment

    •  Or it didn't happen at all! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, sawgrass727, WI Dem

      Did it occur to anyone that he might have made up the whole story to flex his puny biceps on national TV?

      There should be a record of this "assualt" if police officers were called. I think some investigative journalism is in order.

      "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush

      by RevJoe on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:37:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  TOO LATE, the blogs already have the original. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TaraIst, WI Dem, maxalb

      Yay for modern computer systems!

      To MSNBC:

      Mr. Carlson says that he and a friend beat up a guy in a rest room.  "...Hit him against the stall with his head..."  What the hell?  This is the kind of person who MSNBC has on as talent?

      Please excuse me if I say I'm terribly disappointed.

      That's the Gay Panic Defense you just used, Tucker.  You don't get to beat up or kill someone for offending you.  Ask the murderers of Matthew Shepard or Brandon Teena.

      http://wonkette.com/...

      Thanks much.

      Dana ...
      http://angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com

      Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

      by angrytoyrobot on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:21:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds Like Ryan Seacrest's Date w/Terri Hatcher (0+ / 0-)

    Tucker Carlson's a little too anxious to prove to somebody that he's not gay. I think the same of men who bust out the most appalling jokes or slurs about gay people when they're in a same-sex group. I also think, "loser."

    Anyway, why do you suppose that Tucker's so eager to distance himself from Larry Craig?

  •  This is nuts (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beowulf, TooLittleSleep, LordMike, maxalb, alba

    If you teach your children that it's 'ok' for adults to make sexual passes on them, you are unfit to parent.

    Despite my total dislike and annoyance at almost everything Tucker Carlson says, the error of your blanket assumption that he was 'bothered' by something less than an assault and nothing more than a 'pass' is what first occurred to me. The next thing that occured to me is that there is no difference between a 'pass' and an 'assault' when it comes to children. Your update is meaningless and wrong. Sexual solicitation by an adult to a child is indefensable regardless of sexual orientation.

    I knocked a man down for persistantly 'bothering' my sister. He called the police and the cop told him he was lucky she wasn't his sister. She was an adult. If I find a man hitting on my daughter before she comes of age, he will feel lucky to go to jail. And, my daughter has clear instructions on how to defend her self in no uncertain terms.

    A gay man deserves no more tolerance for hitting on a boy in a men's restroom than a straight man hitting on a girl in a woman's restroom. You don't hit on children in bathrooms, period. The idea that someone would even suggest defending that behavior is despicable.

    Regardless of how benign the sexual approach may be in the mind of the predator, they are still a predator, under the law, and those not confident in their own self defence are very often scared into submission by the fear of further injury. That is why this is a crime

    After about 13 minutes of sitting in the stall, he observed Craig lingering outside and frequently peeking through the stall's door crack. Craig then entered the stall next to his. The officer filed the following in his report of the incident as to what happened next:

    At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot.... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times.[32]

    Is that a pass or an assault? The cop is an adult.

    My first instinct in analysing a scenario like this is to juxtapose the gender roles and view the event from a physically weak woman's eyes as she is victimized by physically powerful male predator. That is unecesarry in this case because Tucker describes a scene in which he was a child.

    •  Carlson did not hit this guy in self defense (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Louise, RevJoe, Aquarius40, sawgrass727

      No one here, not one single person has said what this supposed predator (that first bothered Tucker, and then the next day magically the story changes to assaulted Tucker) did was acceptable. Not one single poster.

      Of course, we have to take Tucker Carlson at his word as he describes this 'bothering', that somehow some 40 years later in the next day's recollection, turns into 'assault'.

      Tucker admits he came back with a friend to beat the guy up 20 minutes later.
      Defend that for me, please. I'd love to hear the rationale you use to defend that.

      All ears.
      Waiting.

      socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

      by shpilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:00:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I responded to the diary. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, maxalb

        As I stated a man sexually bothering a child is assault. Further 'assault' does not mean 'rape' just because the diarist says so. Nor does 'bothering' mean what the diarists says it is, just because she says so. I didn't respond to any posters. I responded to the diary.

        "Rejecting a would-be suitor." A man making sexual passes at a child stanger in a bathroom is not a 'suitor'. He is a predator.

        "by comparing some guy making a pass at you to actual rape." Assault does not equal rape.

        Again a "pass" on any child by a "man" or any adult is assault.

        Sexual assault on a child? I'd smash him 20 years later.

      •  Actually several posters have excused (0+ / 0-)

        the predator's conduct by saying things like that he was engaging in "constitutionally protected" activity.  

        •  names? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aquarius40, sawgrass727

          point out those posts please where people defended sexually assulting minors or sexually assaulting anyone for that matter.

          I guess I missed that, or maybe you got confused when people assert that since Tucker changed his story to 'assault' only after he caught shit for his comments, that someone merely 'bothering' someone isn't really illegal (unless they keep it up and it becomes harrassment/stalking of course but Tucker never alleged that).

          •  Here's one from a poster on this thread (0+ / 0-)

            but a gay man propositioning a teenage boy in a bathroom doesn't make as sympathetic a target as a team of athletic African American women.

            Imus attacked the team while they did something honorable and well.

            It's not going to be seen as the same thing here.  Even if the gay man's behavior is constitutionally protected.

            But, because his behavior is constitutionally protected, and beating him is not, we should each still write MSNBC and tell them that Carlson's behavior in that instance was obscene, and his relating the story as a funny joke is also obscene.

            Patently offensive.

            •  That's not what I had in mind (0+ / 0-)

              That person was stating their opinion that a man propositioning a teenager is protected behaviour, not that it is okay to assault someone.

              I don't know that they are correct but they are clearly not defending sexual assault.

        •  Well, I sure didn't see those (0+ / 0-)

          For those people, [which I still don't see, but I am having trouble loading this long thread now, so I'll give you a benefit of the doubt here] their opinion is wrong; invasion of another person's privacy in a public place is wrong, just as Craig was wrong to do what he did. That is illegal and it makes me cringe thinking people hit on each in public toilets: I don't care what gender or preference they have.

          Still does not justify physical violence, especially after the fact or in revenge for the insult.

          Carlson's proper reaction would have been to get law enforcement involved, if it was "required". From the way he initially described the sequence of events, it sounded more like an inconvenience than anything else.

          socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

          by shpilk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:25:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Tucker Has Issued An Updated Statement Now (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, Inland, malharden

    Tucker said that the guy was a stocky black man.

  •  Did Tucker Press Charges? (0+ / 0-)

    Is there a police report of this assault?

  •  Is Tucker Lying? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scout Finch, sawgrass727, WI Dem

    His statement doesn't really clear anything up. Because he says he was grabbed by a guy in men's room, but how did he know the guy was gay, or that it was a sexual assault?
    I just don't believe any of it. It is just too vague to have any believability.
    It sounds like something he heard someone else brag about.

    We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (620 - 560 BC) -8.13, -7.74

    by AWhitneyBrown on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:07:45 PM PDT

  •  Put Rachel Maddow in his place. (5+ / 0-)

    She used to be on his show every once in a while, and was so obviously superior, I was always expecting the screen to fade to black and come up again without Tucker and the show renamed to Maddow Hour.

    Read Obama's 2002 speech against invading Iraq. http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

    by Inland on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:08:44 PM PDT

  •  I emailed MSNBC this afternoon, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, WI Dem

    told them that this guy was a disappointment, and I was sad to see someone like him on MSNBC.

    Was polite, quick and clear.

    Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

    by angrytoyrobot on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:09:44 PM PDT

  •  Tucker is probably telling the truth (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Louise, Aquarius40, WI Dem

    And therefore should get fired.

    No, Seriously.

    I watched the clip and then read the response that he gave.  It sounds to me like he walked into the bathroom, was harrased (touched or otherwise) by some guy, broke free and run away.

    Came back with a friend 15 minutes later and jumped the guy.

    That is Battery.  When he got away he should have contacted the authorities and they should have taken over - but because he went to get a friend and they came back, without the authorities, it shows a motive of returning to "exact revenge".

    They probably pinned him down and went and got a cop at that point.

    I don't know exactly what the guy did - it was probably illegal in multiple ways, but just because the guy likely committed some crimes doesn't give Tucker the right to come back with a friend and beat him up.

    True, Tucker was just a kid - and so his committing a crime wouldn't actually stand in too many courts.. But for him to hop onto the news and laugh about committing the crime is reprehensible.

    Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton: Out of 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.) Americans, this is the best we can do?

    by Yoshi En Son on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:17:28 PM PDT

  •  Oh, Come on (7+ / 0-)
    1. Tucker Carlson is a jerk-off.
    1. Fire him because he beat up a guy who tried to molest him in a bathroom when he was a teenager?  That's just stupid.

    Frankly, ANY teenager of ANY gender who is the victim of attempted molestation from a grownup should beat the creep up.

    IF Carlson is telling the truth (which is very questionable), maybe the predator stopped hanging around bathrooms looking for kids.

    Carlson is a jerk.  But making a Federal Case out of THIS is really stupid.

    •  Once again, two stories (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Louise, Aquarius40, WI Dem

      He didn't say the guy tried to molest him until AFTER the calls to fire him.  The reaction is against his first story where he claimed to have beat up a guy who bothered him.

      He said he's been 'bothered' in restrooms before.  Go watch him say it, it is very casual and matter of fact, not at all like how I would expect someone to describe an actual assault.

      Or maybe people do go around routinely describing sexual assault as a 'bother' and I'm out of touch.

  •  This whole thing is creepie (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, RevJoe, WI Dem

    Tucker Carlson, like all GOP toadies is a pathological liar. Do I know this? Of course, we all do.

    When I was in High School I was 6'5" and weighed 230 lbs. If a man accosted me in a public mens room for sex, I woulda split like all kids my age would have. Does he have a knife? a gun? Is he whacked on PCP? I wouldn't know and I wouldn't be waiting around to find out. I might have contacted a cop if one was around. This story was all macho BS. The jockstrap snapping after Tucker's story between those three was pathetic.

    Joe Scarborough, was equally ridiculous. His knee jerk need to say "I'm not gay" was childish. But that's not what really bothered me. His deep cerebral thoughts on how "Bill Clinton got away with denial" was insane. As I recall, Clinton was impeached. I'd settle for an ethics commitee hearing on Craig but he'll get run out of town by Republicans who are too homophobic to treat the man like a colleague with a problem, or fat that matter anything less than a total leper.

    Carlson and Scarborough are a waste of air time. They are just too freakin weird...I mean how do you come up with these incredibly bizarre stories and commentaries? They are just totally out of touch and I find it difficult to believe MSNBC can't come up with more talent than this.

    What's a guy gotta do to get impeached around here?

    by Blueslide on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:30:17 PM PDT

  •  people posting that this is a tempest... (6+ / 0-)

    in a teapot, or whatever analogy you're using, and that pathetic mama'a boy tucker shouldn't be fired are not getting it.
    It's not whether or not the story is true. He's talking and laughing about beating up fags! It's part of a culture of hate and when I grew up it was everywhere - it was reprehensible then and now. It encourages violence. It is laughing about violence, they've picked a straw man and decided to have a chuckle on air about beating someone's head against a wall - this is putrid!

    All of you who argued differently look harder!

    Fire carlson now!

    "You call this bicameral government? Hah!" - Homer Simpson

    by karlpk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:40:48 PM PDT

    •  Laughing about violence (6+ / 0-)

      we elected a president who laughed and tried to joke about the execution of Carla Faye Tucker when she was put to death. Tempest in a teapot, laughing about violence, I don't think the republicans or half the American people give a shit. In an interview with Tucker Carlson at the start of his 2000 campaign, Bush joked about how condemned murderer Carla Faye Tucker pleaded for her life with him as Texas governor. Then he fake cried "Please don't kill me," Bush emoted an imitation of the woman whom Bush put to death. That ought to tell everyone here how realistic it is for Tucker Carlson to be fired by a billion dollar corporation beholden to George W. Bush. Tucker is his buddy.

  •  Unbefuckinglieveable !! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dianna

    What's the statute of limitations on hate crimes?

  •  if it was a really ugly chick (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blueslide

    would he get a friend to go and beat her up too?

    I'm sure the answer is no, and that makes him a homophobe.

    (And even if the answer is yes, it makes him a major league asshole.)

    there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

    by danthrax on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:53:21 PM PDT

    •  that's silly (0+ / 0-)

      whether you want to blame biology or social norms, the overwhelmingly majority of sexual assaults are committed by males (and most of those, of course, are committed against females).  Whether a man is grabbing a male or female teenager, its very likely that any nearby friend or relative is going to take a punch at him.

      Beyond that, most men are socialized to never hit a woman... even if she gets a punch in, walk away (or at least outsource your fighting to a female relative or friend).  So I don't think a teenage Tucker Carlson would have hit a woman who made an unwanted grab at him, but that hardly makes him homophobic.

  •  IF the man was arrested... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Louise

    ...then there is a Police Record/Report.

    Tucker may use it to defend his "explanation." One of us could search for it to verify his story.

    Me? I don't have the time or the expertise, especially for fuckwit Tucker, but it IS a lead that needs to be followed before any further action against him can be taken.

  •  Sorry, guys... (7+ / 0-)

    If you take Carlson's statements at face-value, then there's no "there" there.  Some jerk assaults him in a restroom, he leaves and comes back with a cop.  In that case, there's no excuse for someone to be assaulting a minor in a men's room.

    If you don't take Carlson's statements at face-value, then you're going to have to provide some other source of evidence.  Because as far as I can see, his statements are the only things we have to go on.  And if we don't believe the only source, then we're just making up our own facts to support whatever version of reality we want to believe.

    There seems to be some question as to what occurred to Tucker qualifies as "assault" or not.  Well, with the total lack of other evidence (other witness, police report) none of us are in any position to judge that or not.

    (And as for the other two hosts laughing at the thought of beating up a gay man, that wasn't the impression I got when I was watching, nor is it the impression I get now rereading what they stated.  To me it looked like they were doing what everyone who has posted a joke in this thread has done: laughing at Carlson.)

    •  True or not... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Louise, Eric K, WI Dem

      Carlson made the comments on tv and made it sound like it would have been ok to do it. That's what we do know. By saying that on a cable news station, it spreads hate. Carlson should pay the consequences for that.

    •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

      I was certainly laughing at the little dweeb  along with them.   But as a heterosexual,  I don't view public restrooms in the context of sex.   If I were bothered by a gay guy  in a restroom I would  be surprised and might do something unexpected like kick his ass.  People can behave in surprising ways in response to surprising situations.

      •  The essence of the 'homosexual panic' defense n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alou73
        •  I don't think panic is the right word n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  Panic is not the right word (0+ / 0-)

          at least in my case.

          •  that's what it is called (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't name it.  I'm just pointing it out.

            But yeah, I'm sure your violent fury at being 'bothered' by a gay man would be righteous and pure.

            •  Why public restrooms? (0+ / 0-)

              Can't a guy take a whiz in peace?   Or is it a form of self assertion?

              •  So you are only filled with violent fury (0+ / 0-)

                if a gay guy cruises you in a restroom?  Otherwise, you're cool with it?

                I don't see what difference it makes if it is in a restroom or not. Any public place is public by definition.

                Are you telling me you wouldn't consider flirting with a pretty woman in a unisex bathroom, like as you are both washing your hands?  Crude?  Maybe but I shouldn't think it would incite bloodlust in you.

                Or maybe you need to give me your definiton of 'bothered' here because to me it means a petty annoyance, not attempted rape.

              •  Why do guys write sexual innuendo (0+ / 0-)

                on public restroom walls?  Call Diana for a good time!

                I guess for men, straight or gay: dicks out = sexual.  I don't know but there is something about public restrooms that causes guys to have sexual thoughts.

                And if you think hetero couples never do it in restrooms, you've never been to a truckstop.

                •  That would imply (0+ / 0-)

                  everyone that goes into a public restroom writes on the walls.   Not likely.   Speak for yourself.  My thought is to relieve myself as quickly as possible and get out.   They usually smell bad and  are not particularly interesting places to hang out.  Maybe it would be different if I were gay.    You are right don't hang out at truck stops either.

                  •  Many people do, that is the point (0+ / 0-)

                    or there wouldn't be scrawling all over stalls, surely you've seen it.

                    I never implied everyone, only enough that there is obviously a connection for some people, gay or straight.  You were the one making it seem as if only gay men would ever associate sex with restrooms when that is clearly not the case.

                    But you are free to be a homophobic maniac who attacks people for flirting if you like of course, I just suggest you not assault someone for hitting on you or you might be surprised at which one of you ends up in jail.

      •  What? (0+ / 0-)

        If I were bothered by a gay guy  in a restroom I would  be surprised and might do something unexpected like kick his ass.

        Really?  If you're that mentally unstable that being surprised by someone making a pass at you might invoke a violent response, I suggest you get yourself some serious mental health treatment now before you explode and hurt someone someday.  You sound like a ticking time bomb.  Either that, or get some security in your sexuality so you don't go trying to beat up some guy who finds you attractive and lets you know it.

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:05:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There is already a 'there' here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40

      The fact that MSNBC issued a statement denying Carlson attacked anyone and then scrubbed those lines from the segment shows they were afraid of the blogs shining a light on it.  

      If they thought there was no 'there' there, they would have felt safe ignoring the blogs.

      And yes, the other two were clearly laughing AT him and Tucker knew it, you can see it in his face.  I think that's why he amped it up and added the 'tough guy' part where he smashed the guys head into a wall which I guess was a lie since he says that didn't happen now.

  •  Tucker's a little shit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TooLittleSleep

    and I don't believe he beat up anyone, even with the help of a friend.  In fact, I believe it was Tucker who got his ass beat in that restroom.

    But what actually happened is irrelevant.  What matters is what Tucker is saying, which is that as a minor, he was sexually harrassed, possibly assaulted, by an older man, and in response he kicked the assailant's ass.

    Most parents would be pleased by such an outcome.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:22:56 PM PDT

  •  If you actually believe... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TooLittleSleep, alnc, steelman, ohcanada, Tanya

    that Tucker Carlson did that I have some great property in Arizona for you.  That guy is a pussy tot he nth degree.  I can't imagine how wimpy that guy was in highschool.

    He was caught telling a lie (that he was hit on...) and then when asked what he did about it he did what several insecure pussies would lie and said they did.  Beat him up!  He is completely full of shit.

    He also said the cops came and arrested the guy.... even if this did happen I promise you that Tucker Carlson did not rough that guy up.  I live in Birmingham,al.  It is the home to the big talkin' softies like this guy.  

    •  Actually... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      byteb, alba

      The one reason I think he might be telling the truth is that he said he went and got a friend - hardly a detail someone would make up if trying to impress others with his prowess.

      I imagine Carlson probably looked like a barely pubescent KID when he was sixteen or seventeen and couldn't beat up anybody.  But kids like that in high school often DID have a friend who was willing to do the fighting for them if fighting was needed.

      •  I dont know..... (0+ / 0-)

        I was that other kid in highschool.  I was in shape and a fit 195lb by the time I was 16.  By my senior year I was still swimming every day and with weights I was up to 205lbs.  I was the type of kid that never started a fight but I NEVER walked away.  I didnt care if you were an adult that was yelling at me for doing something stupid.  If you were dumb enough to start posturing with me I was dumb and misguided enough to egg you on... the moment a person touched me it was usually quickly over.  

        I was a nice kid though.  I was very insecure and liked anyone and everyone that would like me.  I was friends with some of the dorkiest but nicest kids around.  However I could fight and even the biggest bastards in my town respected that and to be honest it felt good to be good at something.

        I dont see Tucker even having the balls to walk back into that bathroom and even a pretty big 16 or 17 year old will have trouble fighting a moderately strong 30 year old.  I see Tucker telling his teacher or something to that degree.  Tucker was likely a really smart punkass kid.  Those are the LEAST likely to have the balls to go back in there.... he is the type that would have called the mob off by saying things like "what if he has a weapon..." and shit like that.  

        I could be wrong but I would be shocked if this story was even somewhat true.  Unless by "friend" he meant police officer or concerned adult that happened to be in the area.

    •  Which is why he grabbed his buddies to help him (0+ / 0-)

      probably the only thing he did was open the door.

      Lets keep Virginia Blue in 2008 - www.VirginiaForEdwards.org - get involved!

      by okamichan13 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:28:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tucker Loves Hate Talk (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Louise, LiberalKickingAss

    I live in Birmingham,al.  It is the home to the big talkin' softies like this guy.  

    Tucker's hate rhetoric makes him anything but a softie.  His use of right wing republican hate talk is dangerous.

  •  Is Tucker GAY? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm just guessing here, but Tucker seems to be the closet kind who try really hard to put up appearances that they are macho when in the fact the opposite is true. What type of guy likes to wear bow ties in this day and age anyway.

    There is also one other possible closet queen at MSNBC who tried to dispel any notions on his gayness by publicly admiring the beauty of female reporter.
    I do respect though a person's right to "come out" when he/ahe is ready but gay-bashing when you yourself are gay is typical Republican hypocrisy.

    "this country is choking on bullshit". Bill Maher

    by urgello on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:32:30 PM PDT

  •  Pucker's Gay Rape Fantasy (0+ / 0-)

    I think Pucker is making the whole thing up. It's his gay fantasy to get hit on like that, and his fantasy to beat up "the gay attacker". Any shrink will tell you that the attacker is Pucker's repressed gay desires, and the "friend" is some other gay man Pucker desires to protect him.

    This "damsel in distress" fantasy is so easily changed by Pucker into different variants he's clearly visualised enough to make it any way he wants, that it's probably pretty deep, making him a true homophobe. I wouldn't be surprised if he's acted out that tawdry little scene. But as the breathless, willing target, not the indignant straight man returning his "extra muscle". Unless his real fantasy is really perverted.

    I wonder if Pucker's parents, the rich Republican operatives who run Scooter Libby's defense fund and keep Pucker employed well out of his depth, know exactly what kind of pervert their twerpy little son actually is.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:48:58 PM PDT

  •  His explanation does not wash (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ticket punch, shaharazade, jayden

    That's the worst pile-it-on-in-your-defense crap I've heard in a while.

    1. does it make sense for his 'Assailant' to hang around and wait for someone else to assault? No - he'd be gone before security / police arrived.
    1. If you return to look for who assaulted you, and hold him for security.... well why is security going to show up? If you called them they would tell you that you are NOT to return there unless accompanied by security... sorry makes no sense

    List this right up there with mister 'Wide Stance' for terrible explanations after the fact.....

    -6.88 -6.36 I'm still looking for a good signature line.

    by andthensome on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:51:32 PM PDT

  •  And while your at it, fire Keith Olbermann (0+ / 0-)

    for the Nazi salute.  It's stupid, pandering infotainment TV.  Please, people, try the decaf.  Isn't there a more important issue to press?  

    Because everyone has one. Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:51:49 PM PDT

  •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Apotropoxy

    This was something done when he was in high school. Each of us has made mistakes in our past. I don't approve of Carlson's actions, just that I don't think it rises to the level that you think.

  •  Going to the bathroom in pairs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WI Dem, shaharazade

    Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room.

    That's a little strange, isn't it?  I have never invited a friend along to the bathroom, and I don't think most men do.  (Most men can also go more than twenty-five minutes without needing to return to the bathroom.)  Why did Carlson go back, and to the same bathroom?  Was it because he wanted to find and detain/assault the guy? Why did he go find the friend instead of the security guard in the first place?  This story is kind of weird.

    •  Perhaps it was more like this... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric K, WI Dem, shaharazade, jayden

      ... but this is based on Tucker's original tale.

      Tucker is taking a wee in the men's room. Another guy says to him, "Hey man, that looks like a dick I could enjoy sucking." Tucker, upset, leaves.

      Outside, he says to his pal, "You'll never believe what just happened to me in there! Some guy told me he wanted to suck my dick!"

      His friend says, "Gross! That's sick! I hate guys like that! Let's go teach him he can't do that!"

      They go back into the mens' room, pull open the stall, smack him into the wall, and rough him up a bit. They laugh. They call him "faggot" and talk some shit. They leave, laughing, saying, "We sure showed him."

      This scenario is a fantasy, since I don't know what happened.

      But it's just as much a fantasy as "young Tucker, fresh-faced and innocent, is taking a leak when an evil predatory pederast grabs him and sexually assaults him. He gets a friend to help him, and they bravely hold the man until the Police can arrest this child molester!"

      20 years later, which one looks better on your resume? The first one, if you're shooting the shit with pals. The second one, if you're scared your job is on the line.

      Ultimately, what matters is that Tucker and his two pals were laughing it up over the fact that Tucker had smacked around a gay guy who had "bothered" him in a restroom. That is enough to get him fired - to essentially argue that smacking a gay person who "bothers" you around is just what people do in response to being bothered.

  •  The Same Tucker Carlson (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Louise, Subterranean, shaharazade, jayden

    who in the infamous CNN CrossFire called Jon Stewart John Kerry's "butt boy"?  He's filled with adolescent homophobia to this day.  

  •  In his first story (5+ / 0-)

    he wanted to impress the big boys with his 'smear the queer' story, but was quick to state that he's not anti-gay or anything.  Uh-huh.

    When he unsurprisingly caught shit for that he (or MSNBC lawyers) altered the story to make him seems a victim of assault and then MSNBC scrubbed it from the segment.

    What gets me is that so many people here are quick to believe Tucker's story but denigrate and attack anyone who offers an alternative explanation...that Tucker is an ass who either made it all up to support his 'queers are dirty' theory or blew up a more benign incident all out of proportion to score 'he-man' points.  Either way he failed miserably.

    I guess many people here have never heard of how gay-bashers and their apologists almost invariably paint their targets as 'perverts' who 'had it coming'.  Kind of how rapists and their apologists will say women 'had it coming' for being 'slutty'.

    Sure, in this case it MAY be true, but are you really going to trust Tucker and take him at his word, especially when he told two distinctly different versions of this story?  Really?  

  •  Tucker is lying (5+ / 0-)

    First of all, he didn't have friends in high school. Second, he was, and is, too cowardly and wimpy to beat anybody up.

    And all these years later, he thinks he can win the approval of "the cool kids" with his juvenile fantasies of being a tough guy.

    I didn't see the segment, but maybe they weren't laughing with Tucker. Maybe they were laughing AT him for being such a pathetic jerk.

    Then again, maybe they all share the same sissy fantasy.

    You're right though. Let him tell his stories in the bar while he's getting shitfaced after being canned.

  •  I've watched it and (3+ / 0-)

    ...they were both laughtig AT him when he said he has been 'bothered' in restrooms (he said it plural like that, as if it has happened multiple times).  

    It does not AT ALL sound like he was talking about assualt, it is very casual, like he was saying he'd been approached or leered at.  

    Then they laughed at him and then he added the bit about hitting the guy, possibly because he knew he was being laughed at and wanted to butch it up.

    Then only after catching shit from bloggers does his come up with the new sexual assault story.

    Smells like bullshit to me.  

  •  My letter to MSNBC (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalLiberal, WI Dem, jayden

    To Whom it May Concern,
    I'm deeply concerned - and offended - by the hate crime Tucker Carlson admitted to (and bragged about) on MSNBC last night. Returning to a public bathroom with a friend and smashing a fellow's face into the stall isn't self-defence (as he describes it in his explanation today) and nothing he said in his original comments indicated that he ever felt threatened, or suffered an assault from the unknown gentleman. Quite the contrary, he admitted to a clearly premeditated assault because he was "bothered" by another man's sexual interest in him. That's a hate crime. Does MSNBC publicly endorse hate crimes? Clearly you do, if you continue to allow such a self-professed and violent bigot to appear on your network.

    Please keep me informed, because if no action is taken, I intend to educate my neighbors and community about your behavior, in the hopes of organizing a public boycott.

    Hope that makes an impact.

  •  Beat him with a wiffle ball bat . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalLiberal

    for about 25 minutes and THEN fire him.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:54:59 PM PDT

    •  after a good game of Red Rover! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobdevo

      he could be in a game of "Red Rover"  with the chant:  "Red Rover, Red Rover send the Tuck.Her on over"  

      Just can't get rid of the guy.  Not easily enough since he found a real show on a real network that has proven they have both sides.  MSNBC has Olbermann to state the obvious, and even though sometimes Chris Matthew's voice get's on my nerves, Holy Crap Tucker Carlson just can't contain himself.  Whoops, that sounded like a double entendre'!

      Too late to beat him silly.  That mush have happened a very long time ago... maybe even his mother threw him down on the floor as an infant!  

      "One on tip-toe cannot stand. One astride cannot walk. One who displays himself does not shine. One who boasts of his own-ability has no merit." -- Lao Tzu

      by public citizen on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:47:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tucker Bragging About a Man Being Effeminate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    carlyle4, shaharazade

    is like Ruben Studdard making fun of someone for having a weight problem.

  •  Let me get this straight (6+ / 0-)

    Don Imus loses his job for using the term "nappy headed hoes," but the MSNBC news director has a good chuckle with Tucker Carlson over his admission of committing a felony?

    Double standard, anyone?

    MSNBC needs to do the right thing here.  Carlson needs to take his place beside Imus in the Hall of Ignominious Departures.

    "We must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom." - Kodos

    by Jon Stafford on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:18:38 PM PDT

  •  Sex offender (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxalb, junta0201

    If you're hitting on people in bathrooms in any way shape or form you are a sex offender.  There is absolutely no other way to spin such behavior.  I cannot believe how our blog community is reacting to this story.

    We can waste all sorts of time pretending to read Tucker's mind about what happened that day but the essential part of the story to me is that some guy hit on him in a men's room.  That's sick man.

    It's also an assault if he in any way touched him.  That's just the law.

    Now, maybe he should have just got the police but I can't say that I wouldn't react violently to someone sexually assaulting me in a men's room.

    •  Hitting on people in public (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boris Godunov, WI Dem

      makes you a sex offender now?  Or is it only in public restrooms?  I mean sure it is crude and annoying but flirting = sex offence now?

      Keep in mind this diary was posted before the story changed from 'bothered' to 'assault' and in fact the story changed because of this diary and other blog posting of a similar nature.

      Also, the new 'sexual assault' story denies Tucker's earlier claim of having hit the guy at all.

      •  Since when did an adult male (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        junta0201

        hitting on a teenage boy in a public rest room become "flirting"??

        •  That's not what was said (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jayden

          I was responding to this:

          If you're hitting on people in bathrooms in any way shape or form you are a sex offender.  

          The comment said nothing about age.  

          Yeah, yeah, Tucker's little story...he didn't say anything about the guy's age either that Ic an see in either the transscript or the clarification, just that he was 'a guy'.

          Seems like the idea that the guy was an old man came from your imagination.  If it even did happen at all, for all you know the guy was 19 and Tucker was 18.

    •  Tucker said he hit the guy's head (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HootieMcBoob, mjd in florida, jayden

      Tucker also said that when he came back with his friend (wimp) that they grabbed the guy and hit his head against the stall. I watched the show, and he never uttered the word assualt. And yes, much to my dismay, Abrams laughed. I agree, Tucker should be fired, he's an uncaring ass in general.

      No Retreat Baby, No Surrender

      by WI Dem on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:07:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tag team (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee

    Good call; great diary. I tweaked your tags, changing hate crime to hate crimes and adding gay rights. With those, gay bashing is redundant, so I took it off.

    Tags are the Daily Kos index to diaries and many Kossacks bookmark tag links so it's easy to find new diaries on favorite or hot issues. Some even add them to their blog rolls to make them easy to find regardless of what computer they are using.  That is an excellent reason to learn to use standard tags in your diaries.

    Check your tags against that list and with this nifty search tool.

    Read more about community efforts to tame the tag cloud in these helpful diaries.

  •  I think what Tucker meant was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TL Eclipse, junta0201

    that they came back later and beat the man off, not up.

    :P

  •  So many ways to dissect this one (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boris Godunov, jayden, wvablue, junta0201

    Remarkably I reviewed most of the comments posted here already. I think this is an important story for the laughter reaction that occurred.  Carlson's later "clarification" muddies the water. And whether his story is true is not so important either.

    To recap:

    • In his first version as told on the air, Carlson did NOT say he was assaulted. He said he was "bothered."

    Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous. It's also really common. I've been bothered in men's rooms.

    • And then he said he and a buddy went back and grabbed the person and hit his head against a stall.  And the person was arrested.
    • Abrams and Scarborough laughed at that version.

    I recognize that kind of laughter--I grew up in a homophobic school environment. There were no known gays in our school and denigrating fag jokes were common.

    Abrams and Scarborough's laughter is the kind of laughter that occurs when one group has power over another group. The first group dehumanizes the second group so any assault on that group is taken lightly.

    That's the problem with this event whether Carlson's story is true or not. That laughter represents ongoing homophobia.

    Let's change the story to a similar "bother" incident and conjecture whether they would have laughed. Carlson's sister happened to be in an area where prostitutes sometimes walk. A man bothered her in some way. Carlson and a buddy came to the scene and hit the man's head against a tree for bothering his sister.

    Even the appearance of soliciting in public is wrong, especially an underage minor of course. But a vigilante reaction of assaulting a suspect should not warrant laughter.  

    That Carlson later claimed that he was assaulted does change the severity of the story but it doesn't excuse what happened during the broadcast.

    In summary, Carlson is the wrong target here. Frankly, I expect the base of his story is true except for the physical assault on him and by him, and perhaps there questioning but no arrest.

    It's the reactionary laughter that suggests the larger ill...that it's funny to beat up a person presumed to be gay who "bothered" Carlson.

    •  I agree, sawgrass727 and asked Abrams (0+ / 0-)

      in the e-mail I sent him if he thinks Carlson's story is still "funny" now that Tucker's singing a new tune about the incident. I asked for clarification as to whether his laughing response indicates that MSNBC endorses homophobia and gay-bashing.

      Any way you dice it, the story just isn't funny. I did add some snark about how ironic it is that Tucker's ratings are in the toilet so maybe he can find some new viewers there. I wondered why Abrams thinks Carlson even deserves more face-time given his abysmal ratings.

      I also let Abrams know I think his show is crap and that he is failing the opportunity presented by such a great lead-in given to him by Olbermann. I compared his placing himself in that timeslot to Dick Cheney promoting himself as VP.

      I then suggested he find a new host for that timeslot and present a newshour comparable in tone and tenor to Countdown. I thought Rachel Maddow would be a great host and would handle well the responsibility of reporting on all the very important events we're facing on a daily basis.

      I then underscored the issue again by pointing out that someone of her caliber and talent probably didn't find Tucker's story ( either of them ) very "funny" or convincing.  

      American Christians are becoming less of either

      by jayden on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:08:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe my gaydar antenna is screwed up (0+ / 0-)

    But I have always thought both Dan Abrams [who I happen have liked a lot ever since his days on Court TV] and Tucker Carlson were gay.

    I know Tucker is married with children, but gaydar is gaydar.

    Help wanted: Veteran's Administrator. Requirements: Hates Bush / Loves Vets. Somebody call Paul Rieckhoff. Thankyouverymuch

    by llbear on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:01:58 PM PDT

    •  No. It's accurate. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      llbear

      Gay Bashers are always gay. In fact, it's probably closet gay men who take out their frustrations in Violence that cause a HUGE proportion of the problems in the world.

      If only Gay people were free to be gay without any big deal, anywhere int he world, I'd bet we would see an end to many of the main problems we have, overpopulation and war among them.

      You can't get away with the crunch, 'cuz the crunch always gives you away

      by dnamj on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:20:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Story stinks as bad as Craig's. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, TL Eclipse, junta0201

    Why did Tucker go back? Anyone who was assulted would call the police from the nearest phone and wait for them to handle it. Was Tucker looking for some cheap thrills? And his story changes, more fishiness. But I'm sure I should show him compassion, as he's so understanding and fair minded to others.

    Elizabeth Edwards is my hero. JRE - the only candidate that matters.

    by StealthAmerica on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:39:59 PM PDT

  •  My note to MSNBC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    katier, Liberal Pride

    On Dan Abram's show, Tucker Carlson confessed to committing a hate crime.

    Afterwards, he wrote to Media Matters and said the confession he made on Dan Abrams' show was in fact a lie and he apprehended someone in a public bathroom instead of going to the authorities and reporting an alleged asault against himself.

    So either he was lying on your show or lying to Media Matters.

    Could you please clarify?

    If Mr. Carlson really went to the appropriate authorities as he claimed in his writing to Media Matters, then those authorities will have a record and a paper trail.

    Or he was lying and he really did commit a hate crime.

    Can you please figure out which it was and take appropriate sanctions against Mr. Carlson?

    I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

    by Tamifah on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:58:55 PM PDT

  •  Fire Him! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade

    Fire Tucker NOW

    god will punish the true sinners

  •  Tucker went to high school in La Jolla Calif. (0+ / 0-)

    he must have been in college at Georgetown when he claimed to have done this. He is probably lying anyway

  •  What is so frustrating (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TL Eclipse

    is that people here are defending Tucker saying that he was right to attack the guy back since he was attacked first but that isn't even what Tucker himself claimed.

    The first story has Tucker and a friend coming back some time LATER to attack the guy after the guy only 'bothered' him.

    It was only with the second story, issued after he caught flack for the first one keep in mind please, that 'bothered' was upgraded to the much more serious 'physically grabbed' and also with that story the claim that Tucker and friend attacked the guy back was dropped in favor of the less incendiary claim that they were only holding him until security guards arrived.

    At no time has Tucker claimed, simultaneously, that a guy assaulted him and he immediately retaliated.  

    So why are people taking select bits from each story and making up this new story that goes beyond even what Tucker himself has claimed and then using that to defend him?

  •  symptomatic implosion (0+ / 0-)

    can be a beautiful thing to watch. george allen's macaca moment, don's nappy headed hoes incident, and now tucker's claim to beating up a gay (and, oh how proud he was telling that lie), are all pathetically rovian in their conception and delivery. gross political incorrectness isn't all that cool anymore. so along with the republicans' main worries (such as, who in their right mind would cast a vote their way), they now must also contend with the reality of a price to be paid for speaking their bigotry to their core audience like they were once free to do, before blogs were here to put them in their place.

    •  Little Tucker Carlson also laughs at injured girl (0+ / 0-)

      Let's not forget, Little Tucker Carlson is such a big dick-swinging man he LAUGHS at little girls almost killed in a swimming=pool pump accident.

      (snip)

      Is John Edwards an economy-draining, ambulance-chasing social pariah, as Republicans and big business claim? Ask his clients, like 5-year-old Valerie Lakey.

      On a summer evening in 1993, David Lakey took his little girl swimming at a recreation center in Raleigh, N.C. Valerie Lakey was 5 years old, a good swimmer, and she and her friends liked to splash around in the children's wading pool that stayed open a little later than the big pool where they usually swam.

      That's what Valerie was doing when a nearby mom heard her call out for help. Valerie was sitting on the bottom of the shallow pool, and the suction from the drain was holding her down. David Lakey raced to free his daughter but couldn't. Other parents jumped in the water to help, but they couldn't get Valerie loose. Valerie was scared, and she began to say that her stomach hurt.

      Time passed, and somebody figured out how to turn off the pool's pump. The suction broke, and Valerie was released from its grip. But as David Lakey pulled his daughter from the water, blood and tissue filled the pool. Valerie's intestines had been sucked out.

      [snip]

      Tucker Carlson has heard about Valerie's case. It's the one, apparently, that causes him to dismiss John Edwards as a "personal-injury lawyer specializing in Jacuzzi cases."  

      skiddly bop doo wow!

      by skiddlybop on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:45:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  While I agree with you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxalb, lisastar

    I also hope that no one will take this diary as an endorsement that it's okay to make sexual solicitations to others in a public restroom.  As far as I'm concerned, a gay person making such a solicitation is no different then a non-gay person making such a solicitation. Everyone deserves a little privacy in public restrooms, including straight men.

    Having said that, Carlson, Abrams and Scarborough were all wrong, once again, and I hope this will end the admiration I frequently see for Abrams around here, because he obviously holds some responsibility for this fiasco.

    Democrats -- Progress for the Working Class

    by rogun on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:39:09 AM PDT

  •  Dear Tucker, (0+ / 0-)

    Just because somebody 'clocked'* you once when you were in high school doesn't mean that sex in men's toilets is rampant. And those creepy looking men hanging around the toilet at your son's soccer games are called 'jocks' or 'dads' of other kids who play socker. Just bring along the bodyguard and the hand sanitizer.

    If the kid needs to go to the bathroom. Don't let your fear of those jocks thinking you are a homosexual prevent your child from doing his business. Just because you look and act like one of us doesn't mean you are. After all, you are a dad. Isn't that proof enough that you are a big bad heterosexual - better than anyone else who are not?

    • Clocked - a term my friends use to describe when somebody "knows what time it is" - so to speak, and realize they are being checked out by one of us gay guys.

    P.S. Oh, when you heard rumors that the specific toilet in Georgetown was "busy" from 3-4pm on thursdays and you worked up the courage to go check it out for yourself, doesn't permit you to engage in gay bashing. Even if some of your best friends are gay. Caveat - I do not think sex in public toilets is appropriate or rampant and sexual violence is completely unacceptable. thank you.

    Peace,

  •  he couldn't beat up buffet let alone a grown man (0+ / 0-)

    BAHAHAHAAHAAH........that's the greatest tall tale i've heard in quite sometime.  First, tucker says he goes hunting all the time and now he's a tough guy who comes back and kicks the crap outta people.

    Uh huh...............

    Obama or Edwards '08

    by bikko100 on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:52:32 AM PDT

  •  This is the email I sent to (0+ / 0-)

    MSMBC with cc to Tucker.

    There are some things that just don't wash with Carlson's sorry explanation of the restroom incident.

    Appears the details were first offered by Carlson to bolster his manliness--a macho assertion, "Don't let a gay guy come onto me, or I'll show him!"  At first it was just an approach by this guy.  No "assault" was mentioned.  Whatever the gay guy did, this provoked Carlson to return--25 minutes later, and with a friend.  The first time told, it was with the intent of putting this gay guy in his place.  Basically, they came back to beat the gay guy up, which Carlson boasts to the viewer they did.  Now whether or not Carlson was assaulted (which was not mentioned in the first account), the purpose of the return visit was clear.  Also important to note, there was no reference to seeking out a security guard, or other authorities, which would be the response one would expect--if violent retribution were not the intent.

    Now comes the clarification statement to viewers by Carlson.  The details of the story change somewhat.  The assault is now introduced--the man "physically grabbed me."  Carlson begins to play down the macho aspect (that was the point of the first account).  He and his friend now return just to "seize the man and [hold] him until a security guard arrived."  Well, there's a problem with this.  The direct point of the first account was to show what a couple of macho guys do to gays--they beat them up.  Now the intent was just to "seize" him and "hold" him, waiting for the security guard to arrive.  There's something very important missing from both accounts.  AT ANY POINT DID CARLSON AND HIS FRIEND SEEK THE ASSISTANCE OF SECURITY?  If you're just some scared kid who initially ran from an incident that alarmed you, you don't return 25 mins later (with a friend).  If Carlson did not HIMSELF (or his friend) contact security, then they obviously were not anticipating that the security guard was going to arrive.  And if Carlson had contacted security, they would not have been encouraged (or perhaps allowed) to return to the restroom without the security guard accompanying them.  Appears the security guard just happened to arrive, but uncalled by Carlson and his friend.  (It's more likely the security arrived to stop Carlson and his friend from beating up the gay guy.)  YOU DON'T JUST GO BACK TO "SEIZE" AND "HOLD" SOME DANGEROUS GUY WHO'S JUST ASSAULTED YOU WITH THE IDEA THAT SECURITY MIGHT HAPPEN TO APPEAR.  

    Like I say, the story just doesn't wash.  I think Carlson described a hate crime he took part in, and he proudly shared this with viewers, obviously to assert  his manliness.  And the other participants shared in this bit of disgusting macho humor, reinforcing its acceptance in the eyes of the viewer.  This reflects poorly not only on Carlson, but on your entire network.  A full and thorough explanation is due the viewers.  This sort of behavior is dangerous and should not be affirmed by your network.  Tucker has a problem, and should probably seek professional help.  I'm not sure he deserves to continue sharing his views with a national audience.  Carlson and MSNBC owes the public an explanation.  

  •  fair is fair (0+ / 0-)

    tucker beat up a gay boy in school, where as me, as a gay boy, beat up all those nerdy pathetic bowtie wearing losers!  maybe this incident led to his 'dancing with the stars' revelation.  tucker seemed a bit campy to me

    •  It is a LIE (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueGenes

      C'mon!  Other's have pointed this fact out too.  There is NO WAY Tucker beat up ANYONE.  He may have borrowed a few physically capable guys to do his dirty work for him, "helping" by yelling, "Yeah!  Get 'im good!" or holding the guy when he new it was "safe" to do so, but beat him up himself?  No.  Way.  At best (worst), he took a "freebie" kick at the guy after someone else disabled him.

      Tucker beat no one...OK, he most certainly has beat (off) himself but no one else.

      "Events are in the saddle and ride mankind." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

      by Terminus Est on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 06:30:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  anyone who reminds (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM, dnn, Eric K, WI Dem

    his viewers constantly that he's married, has kids, etc, raises eyebrows

  •  "ane we bashed his head against the wall" (5+ / 0-)

    My partner (yes we are gay)both did a double take at Carlson's admission. Did an immediate T-vo to see if we heard it right and we had.

    May we remind our fellow Americans, if you are not harmed, and Tucker was 'hit on' not hit, responding with physical violence is criminal assault.

    The locker room laughter and the 'he only got what he deserved' attitude was the most disturbing part of the whole mess.

    Of course, these pathological homophobes like Carlson are just closet cases themselves. The gaydar goes off every time I see Tucker. That bow tie on him is just so precious, those baby blue eyes and blond hair, oh come on.
    He is sooooo gay.

  •  Not even close. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sam storm
    Being asked for money, or noise makers, or litterers may "bother" you, but it's not even comparable to somebody grabbing you after making the assumption you would be interested in lewd and awful acts. No comparison.
    I doesn't however warrant physical abuse. The person should be pointed out to authorities and let them handle it.
  •  Tucker's gotten much more "manly" (0+ / 0-)

    since he lost the bow tie. I guess his image makeover calls for anecdotes of gay-bashing in DC public restrooms.

    Another pathetic moment from the homophobic corporate media.

    "Here we are, trapped in the amber of the moment. There is no why." - Kurt Vonnegut

    by Wayneman on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 06:02:30 AM PDT

  •  hate crimes are funny ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DemiGoddess, maralenenok

    or at least that seems to be the opinion of Tucker Carlson. I really don't think what Tucker Carlson may or may not have done in a public restroom is the most important point. What bothers me is he claims to have committed a hate crime and then laughed about it.

    I wrote a separate diary http://www.dailykos.com/... about it that starts with:

    Tucker Carlson told a story about himself committing a hate crime to a national audience and then laughed about it. He later released a statement saying it was ok because he was both lying about and omitting important details when he originally told the story. So in the end his claim seems to be that he isn't a criminal bigot just a deceitful idiot who finds hate crimes funny; I'm so glad he could clear that up for us.

  •  The Sen. Craig hoopla (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sam storm
    has certainly turned into an excuse for the "family values" "compassionate conservatives" to vent appalling hate speech on the news networks.

    And guess what? I still see a consistent conformity with loathing of homosexuality and self-loathing of one's own, apparently unforgiveable, tendencies of the sort.

    When one doth protest so much, one hates more than the guy who's doing him no harm with his sexual preference -- one loathes oneself for the same reason.

    If Tucker was beating up some guy for coming onto him, I have a pretty good idea why.

    "The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded." - Terry Jones

    by Cenobyte on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 06:48:13 AM PDT

  •  Tucker is full of it (0+ / 0-)

    His story about being "bothered" in the men's room by a gay guy just smells of BS on too many levels. But why would someone even tell a story like that?

    On another subject, I agree that whether or not a politician is gay (generally) is irrelevant. BUT, it does become relevant when the mere fact of being gay conflicts with the platform they run on. ANYTHING they do, that is otherwise their own personal business, becomes our business when it results in egregious hypocrisy.

    On another subject, Tucker was actually screaming "non of our business!" when David Vitter was busted renting a prostitute. IT'S A CRIME

  •  I always thought Tucker was gay (0+ / 0-)

    I always thought Tucker was gay.  I'm not kidding.  He dresses gay, looks kinda gay and is a Republican.  How could he not be gay?

    I do NOT mean that as an insult to gay people.  

  •  Sorry I don't get the problem here (0+ / 0-)

    I am not a defender of TC,  BUT he made very salient points.  HE should be able to go into a men's bathroom and not get hit on.  I do not think he "beat up" the guy because he was gay.  He 'beat u