#NOTE : As the r/nba mods have said, this is the final non-NBA related post in regard to Enes Kanter.
Text : "People should feel really blessed to be in America. They love to criticize it but when you live in a country like Turkey, you appreciate the freedoms you have here. "I feel like they should just keep their mouth shut and stop criticizing the greatest nation in the world and they should focus on their freedoms and their human rights and democracy."
Sources w/ video :
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1465501510226391042?t=lXli3caqpAm6w75_OfGgYw&s=19
Right wing source to equal things out :
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1465499366823759877?t=yRxYpMBCadkdO-Rj_3Qnaw&s=19
Streamable link
https://streamable.com/y67055
Full FOX Video
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6284431067001/
Submission Statement: I wouldn't say that I have watched a lot of Tucker Carlson, just his conversations with IDW figures and their adjacents like Rubin, Weinstein, Tulsi, Yang etc. And in every single one of these exchanges, I've been searching desperately for what is so extreme or dangerous about his ideas and I haven't found it.
Obviously, the woke left will launch baseless claims of white supremacy, but they'll do that with anyone so it's not even a point worth considering. However I've seen some in the anti-regressive sphere who seem to characterize Tucker Carlson's show as this partisan fox news echo chamber, which I don't think is fair at all.
Here is IDW member Joe Rogan with an excellent summary on Tucker Carlson.
What I like about the IDW and I think is one of it's strengths is that we as the politically homeless don't have to play the rival treehouse game of what's 'our' news station vs 'their' news station we just want to hear rational thought. Who cares if Tucker Carlson is on Fox News? If he's having a productive discussion with an outstanding individual like Andrew Yang, then why shouldn't we listen?
I'm genuinely asking, what is the problem with Tucker Carlson? Because I don't see it.
A week after Jan. 6, and shortly after Cruz labeled the attack terrorism repeatedly, the Congressional Research Service issued a report on whether the rioters might have been engaged in terrorism. It cited two definitions:
-
The Code of Federal Regulations: “The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
-
The federal criminal code’s definition: “Acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” that “appear to be intended … to intimidate or coerce a civilian population … to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion … or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and … occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The CRS report is uncharacteristically definitive on this point, saying, “The participants’ actions seem to fit both definitions.” And they do. This was clearly intended to influence the work of a government using intimidation or coercion. It’s difficult to understand it as anything else.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11573
Friday song
https://youtu.be/QHQKuWQhu8o
