Toronto Escorts

Tucker Carlson Blows Up Guest-Leaked Recording of Spiked Interview: ‘Go F*ck Yourself

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
Tucker Carlson spiked an interview he originally planned to run on his show this month, but the Dutch historian he spoke to has released a recording from their discussion, and it sheds some light on how the interview completely collapsed.

Dutch economics writer Rutger Bregman drew intrigue weeks ago when he claimed that the Fox News host had a profane meltdown as they spoke to each other about Bregman’s remarks at Davos. At the time, Tucker Carlson Tonight Senior Executive Producer Justin Wells told Mediaite that they aborted the segment because Bregman had turned the interview into a “calculated personal insult campaign” that wasn’t worth viewers’ time.

NowThis has released cell phone footage and audio of Bregman during his pre-record session with Carlson. Bregman insinuated that Fox News pundits suppress indications that the public supports higher taxes for the wealthy, all while the channel’s on-air talent make plenty of money.

As Bregman went through his ideas on how to make tax systems fairer, he spoke of “corruption,” “people being bribed,” and accused the Murdoch family of using the network to “scapegoat immigrants” instead of talking about tax avoidance. Bergman went on to tell Carlson “you are a millionaire funded by a billionaire,” and the Fox News host grew increasingly agitated as Bregman noted the wealth of Carlson’s colleagues.

Bergman predicted that Carlson would spike the interview, and sure enough, Carlson ended the chat by saying “why don’t you go f*ck yourself you tiny brain – and I hope this gets picked up – because you’re a moron. I tried to give you a hearing, but you were too f*cking annoying.”

https://www.mediaite.com/online/tuc...ecording-of-spiked-interview-go-fck-yourself/

Watch the actual conversation, including the full version:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/sta...ecording-of-spiked-interview-go-fck-yourself/

Fake Fox News pulled this off their broadcast. Why?? It was obvious how Bergman got under Tucker's skin and rattled him. Clearly, Tucker has loved to dish out insults with anyone that disagreed with him, but when Bergman exposed his hypocrisy, that was it and Sleazy Eyed Carlson can be heard shouting profanities!!

 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
Here’s the fascinating part of this clash: Carlson starts out by bathing Bregman in praise for his remarks at Davos, which the video replays. “That’s one of the great moments — maybe the great moment in Davos history,” Carlson said, chuckling about the hypocrisy of the folks who travel by private jet to talk about the world’s problems in Switzerland. “If I was wearing a hat, I would take it off to you,” Carlson said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...tucker-carlsons-fraud/?utm_term=.ce620312edd2

This is so hilarious!!
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
LMAO...Bregman completely destroyed Carlson...hahahahahahahahahaha

I’ve listened to that interview 3x today...it just keeps getting funnier!
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
I agree that it was really funny and no wonder Fox did not air it. Tucker desperately tried to push his side of the story, but Fox must have been even more embarrassed, as they did not air the full segment of Tucker's story. But listen to the usual right wing online trolls who posted their comments in still trying to desperately defend Tucker's stupid explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWLKeC8zgGU
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
As usual Tucker Carlson just does not want Trump's base to listen the honest truth. When Richard Painter was elaborating exactly how Trump could be removed from office, then we have known all along that Fox News. Anchors like Carlson, will never come to terms with accepting reality. It is so hilarious that some of the right wingers on this Board think that he is the best anchor of all the Newsmedia!!
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,344
113
Room 112
I love these high tax proponents who use the argument that in the 50's and 60's the top marginal tax rate was 90% and it was a golden age of capitalism. But here's the thing - hardly anyone paid those levels of tax. All you have to do is go back and look at what the average tax rates were paid by the 1%. In the 1950's the top 1% paid an effective tax rate of 42%. Today its about 36.5%. Not that much of a difference. Now if you want to drill down to the top 0.1% then there is a wider disparity - 51% vs 39%.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

The main goal of tax policy should be to maximize revenues. The so called optimal rate of taxation. The majority of economists generally agree that the optimal rates of taxation are well below 50%. Why is that? People will voluntarily report more income if they feel that the taxation rate is not punitive. 60%, 70%, 80% is punitive. People won't pay that. The electronic age means capital is mobile and will gravitate to jurisdictions where taxation rates are favorable. Don't believe me. Look at what Gov Cuomo just said recently. When they instituted their millionaire's tax the total tax receipts to the treasury dropped by $3B. High income earners fleed the state.
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
I love these high tax proponents who use the argument that in the 50's and 60's the top marginal tax rate was 90% and it was a golden age of capitalism. But here's the thing - hardly anyone paid those levels of tax. All you have to do is go back and look at what the average tax rates were paid by the 1%. In the 1950's the top 1% paid an effective tax rate of 42%. Today its about 36.5%. Not that much of a difference. Now if you want to drill down to the top 0.1% then there is a wider disparity - 51% vs 39%.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

The main goal of tax policy should be to maximize revenues. The so called optimal rate of taxation. The majority of economists generally agree that the optimal rates of taxation are well below 50%. Why is that? People will voluntarily report more income if they feel that the taxation rate is not punitive. 60%, 70%, 80% is punitive. People won't pay that. The electronic age means capital is mobile and will gravitate to jurisdictions where taxation rates are favorable. Don't believe me. Look at what Gov Cuomo just said recently. When they instituted their millionaire's tax the total tax receipts to the treasury dropped by $3B. High income earners fleed the state.
You should give Tucker a call and offer to help him out with his interviews. It looks like he needs you.


:rofl:
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I love these high tax proponents who use the argument that in the 50's and 60's the top marginal tax rate was 90% and it was a golden age of capitalism. But here's the thing - hardly anyone paid those levels of tax. All you have to do is go back and look at what the average tax rates were paid by the 1%. In the 1950's the top 1% paid an effective tax rate of 42%. Today its about 36.5%. Not that much of a difference. Now if you want to drill down to the top 0.1% then there is a wider disparity - 51% vs 39%.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

The main goal of tax policy should be to maximize revenues. The so called optimal rate of taxation. The majority of economists generally agree that the optimal rates of taxation are well below 50%. Why is that? People will voluntarily report more income if they feel that the taxation rate is not punitive. 60%, 70%, 80% is punitive. People won't pay that. The electronic age means capital is mobile and will gravitate to jurisdictions where taxation rates are favorable. Don't believe me. Look at what Gov Cuomo just said recently. When they instituted their millionaire's tax the total tax receipts to the treasury dropped by $3B. High income earners fleed the state.
Surely the main goal of tax policy should be to raise sufficient money to pay for the goods, service and actions the citizens expect from their government, in return for paying those taxes.

As an illustration: Since we expect the Mayor and Councillors to go about inspecting and fixing pot-holes, we don't need much of a Roads Department to do that, and thus could cut taxes during the last Mayor's term and can still keep them just behind inflation — i.e. no new money, because no new goods, services or actions are desired — ever since.

Because Toronto and its citizens already have everything they want or need from municipal government.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
I love these high tax proponents who use the argument that in the 50's and 60's the top marginal tax rate was 90% and it was a golden age of capitalism. But here's the thing - hardly anyone paid those levels of tax. All you have to do is go back and look at what the average tax rates were paid by the 1%. In the 1950's the top 1% paid an effective tax rate of 42%. Today its about 36.5%. Not that much of a difference. Now if you want to drill down to the top 0.1% then there is a wider disparity - 51% vs 39%.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

The main goal of tax policy should be to maximize revenues. The so called optimal rate of taxation. The majority of economists generally agree that the optimal rates of taxation are well below 50%. Why is that? People will voluntarily report more income if they feel that the taxation rate is not punitive. 60%, 70%, 80% is punitive. People won't pay that. The electronic age means capital is mobile and will gravitate to jurisdictions where taxation rates are favorable. Don't believe me. Look at what Gov Cuomo just said recently. When they instituted their millionaire's tax the total tax receipts to the treasury dropped by $3B. High income earners fleed the state.
You have to take everything into context. There were less than 10,000 households who earned over $200,000 in the 1950s. In todays terms that equates to $2 million. The earnings up to $200,000 was not taxed at the 91%. It was obviously tax bracketed over different income levels like it is today. Only about 1% ended up paying the full 91% for these amounts over $200,000. Remember that tax avoidance was legal and most of the 10% managed to drop their incomes to less than $200,000 in declared incomes. That is legal and not disputed, with the exception of those evading taxes by using certain illegal loopholes. But yes Bregman was absolutely correct to state that the top tax bracket was around 90% then.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
I don't know but the Carlson boycotters are a little shortsighted. Carlson replaced O'Reilly and that was a bad news for Fox hate crowd. Carlson is a lot more effective and, unlike Bill, he's not a rigid conservative. While O'Riley was no ideologue, his centrism was rooted squarely within the conservative mainstream. Carlson is not bound by those restraints. He's a middle class populist- which explains his appeal.
 

Zenyatta

Banned
Feb 5, 2019
126
0
0
Tucker went off the rails long ago, He's Fox's version of Don Lemon, if Lemon doesn't like how an interview is going he just shuts it down where as Tucker won't even air it.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
At least Don Lemon allows his guests to put their side of the story. I have seen Carlson time and time again interrupting his guests. That audio tape says it all, in the manner of he abruptly cut off Bregman. Don Lemon is far more respectful to his guests. The one or two times that he did intervene, was during some over zealous discussions between some right wing guests and the rest of the panel!!
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,710
7,990
113
Toronto
At least Don Lemon allows his guests to put their side of the story. I have seen Carlson time and time again interrupting his guests. That audio tape says it all, in the manner of he abruptly cut off Bregman. Don Lemon is far more respectful to his guests. The one or two times that he did intervene, was during some over zealous discussions between some right wing guests and the rest of the panel!!
I love when Lemon shuts down the idiot Steve Cortes who can be absurd. He used to also do it with Jack Kingston before, when he routinely went "full-retard".

Kingston has been a lightning rod for controversy, attracting ridicule for suggesting in February 2018 that the Parkland High School students who planned an anti-gun violence rally were taken advantage of by "left-wing gun control activists," even suggesting that bogeyman George Soros was in cahoots with the group. "I would say to you very plainly that organized groups that are out there like George Soros are always ready to take up the charge," he said on air.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
I love when Lemon shuts down the idiot Steve Cortes who can be absurd. He used to also do it with Jack Kingston before, when he routinely went "full-retard".

Kingston has been a lightning rod for controversy, attracting ridicule for suggesting in February 2018 that the Parkland High School students who planned an anti-gun violence rally were taken advantage of by "left-wing gun control activists," even suggesting that bogeyman George Soros was in cahoots with the group. "I would say to you very plainly that organized groups that are out there like George Soros are always ready to take up the charge," he said on air.
I agree that Steve Cortes is an idiot. But you have to give CNN credit for bringing him on to air that ridiculous logic of his, even though all the evidence points to a total contradiction to his statement / statements.
 

Zenyatta

Banned
Feb 5, 2019
126
0
0
At least Don Lemon allows his guests to put their side of the story. I have seen Carlson time and time again interrupting his guests. That audio tape says it all, in the manner of he abruptly cut off Bregman. Don Lemon is far more respectful to his guests. The one or two times that he did intervene, was during some over zealous discussions between some right wing guests and the rest of the panel!!
Actually no he doesn't if it's a Democrat he lets them have their say if it's a Republican he interrupts them and doesn't let them finish, that's why tou hardly ever see any Republicans go on his show it's become a Democratic infomercial
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
Actually no he doesn't if it's a Democrat he lets them have their say if it's a Republican he interrupts them and doesn't let them finish, that's why tou hardly ever see any Republicans go on his show it's become a Democratic infomercial
I have seen numerous Republicans on his show. The problem is that his show airs at 10 PM, and very few Democrats or Republicans are willing to be a guest on his show. He has a much more balanced panel than I have seen on Fox News. Yes, it is more Democrat leaning but Fox News is a Republican Informercial and unabashedly supports the Republicans with anchors like Hannity and Pirro actually taking the platform at Trump's campaign rally. That is a fact.
 

latinboy

Active member
Jan 22, 2011
746
180
43
Actually no he doesn't if it's a Democrat he lets them have their say if it's a Republican he interrupts them and doesn't let them finish, that's why tou hardly ever see any Republicans go on his show it's become a Democratic infomercial


It's so common there's actually a google search algorithm "Don Lemon cuts off..."

I'll never understand why people boldfaced lie about stuff like this LOL
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
Sure there are numerous such cutoffs posted by alt right trolls. They obviously do not take everything into context. There was one occasion where he had to cut off the guest, but that was because they had overstepped the Commercial time. Then the guest was allowed to speak after the Commercial. But the alt right wing troll did not mention that fact on their online BS that they put out on Youtube!!
 

Zenyatta

Banned
Feb 5, 2019
126
0
0
I have seen numerous Republicans on his show. The problem is that his show airs at 10 PM, and very few Democrats or Republicans are willing to be a guest on his show. He has a much more balanced panel than I have seen on Fox News. Yes, it is more Democrat leaning but Fox News is a Republican Informercial and unabashedly supports the Republicans with anchors like Hannity and Pirro actually taking the platform at Trump's campaign rally. That is a fact.
They used to be on his show they don't come on anymore, I agree FOX is a Republican informercial just just like Don Lemon is an informercial for Democrats, if you can't see that I can't help you, he has Democrats on his show on a regular basis.You can't blame it on alt-right trolls, he would cut off all Republicans on a regular basis. I used to watch his show but I can't watch it anymore, He's gone off the rails just like Tucker.
 
Toronto Escorts