“MALIGNANT BUFFOON”: Tucker Carlson Drops the Hammer on Dr. Fauci Over Flip-Flop Messages
By: Collin Rugg
What an utter buffoon! Malignant as well. From no face diaper to multiple ones for extra protection. He invested in the lab that brought us the virus and his leadership since day one has been worse than useless.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
“MALIGNANT BUFFOON”: Tucker Carlson Drops the Hammer on Dr. Fauci Over Flip-Flop Messages
by CollinRugg about 2 hours ago
During his primetime show on Wednesday, Fox News host Tucker Carlson unleashed on Dr. Anthony Fauci, calling him “a malignant buffoon” for constantly changing his opinion on masks over the past year.
“Now science is telling us we need to wear two masks, instead of just one,” Carlson said. “In fact, experts on other networks suggest we might need to wear three masks just to be safe. Think about it like triple-bagging your face. That’s the only way to be safe.”
Carlson went on to play a video clip of Fauci stating that wearing two masks was “common sense.”
“So if you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective, and that’s the reason why you see people either double-masking or doing a version of an N-95,” he said.
“So double-masking is ‘just common sense, just common sense!’” Carlson shot back. “How long are people going to put up with this? Follow the logic. Wouldn’t it just be safer at this point just for people to stop breathing entirely? You wouldn’t get COVID. You kind of get the impression that’s kind of where Tony Fauci may be a few months from now.”
Carlson continued by mocking Fauci for stating a year ago that American citizens “should not be walking around with masks” because they did not provide “perfect protection.”
“Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks,” Fauci said in the spring. “Right now, people should not be walking around — there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” Fauci reiterated. “When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet. It’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is.”
“This guy’s a malignant buffoon,” Carlson said while reacting to Fauci’s previous comments. “He is, and the teachers’ unions are actively hurting children. They are. Why are we listening to any of these people?”
WATCH:
Check out what the Daily Wire reported in relation to wearing multiple masks:
On a CNBC program hosted by former Fox News host Shep Smith, former CBS/MSNBC/NBC correspondent and host Contessa Brewer said three is better than two, citing “experts.”
“So yeah, the experts keep telling us that wearing masks is really about protecting ourselves, protecting others from ourselves in the event that we are contagious. But you know if other people aren’t wearing their masks or they’re wearing them improperly, we need to protect ourselves. So experts say you can double up with a tight weave fabric mask for added protection,” Brewer said.
“Now, Virginia Tech researchers found that doubling up these cloth masks increases the efficacy from 50% to 75%. A three-layer mask could block up to 90% of the particles.” A graphic accompanying the declaration used the word “efficiency” instead of “efficacy.”
Wags on social media had a field day. “We’ve lost our ever-lovin’ minds,” wrote one person on Twitter, adding, “I thought it was a parody. Nope… it’s real.”
Tags
Who is online
121 visitors
Why would someone call one of the most highly respected infectious disease doctors in the world "a buffoon" ?
You have to talk like an idiot (Carlson) in order to effectively communicate with your television audience (Trumpsters).
Fauci has been giving a few interviews lately where he is being asked questions about the incompetence of the Trump white house concerning covid and he is giving honest answers, so of course Tucker Carlson has to call him a "buffoon" . Hee -haw.
He's been all over the place when it comes to what to do, what not to do, over the last year. Dr Birx was right on most issues and look how the Democrats slimed her.
Tucker, that is an excellent question. Why don't you try it, since it is your suggestion, and let us know in an hour or 2?
Partisan crap.
It is sickening watching partisans keep going back to Fauci's March statement when virtually nothing was known of the pandemic and there were ( relatively ) few cases in the USA and ignore the fact that as we (the world) learned more of COVID-19 his communications reflected this. Yes of course his recommendations will change given new information; is that not the desired result?
Here is a video in July where Fauci addresses his March video:
Partisans have no interest in truth, they just push their agenda.
Why do you say partisans instead of right wing or republican ? Fox News is not generically partisan, it is specifically the home of disinformation and right wing propaganda.
You sound like you say "partisan" in order to blame both sides equally for something that is the fault of one side.
Because this is an example of partisan crap. Here Tucker Carlson is engaging in partisanship. Is that not obvious?
John, has it ever occurred to you to just read what people write? Have you noticed that this seed is about what Carlson said and I am criticizing his comments? My comment, here, is focused on Carlson. The key problem I see is that Carlson is engaging in one-sided, blind, partisan criticism. Yet another example of partisan crap.
Another thing. How stupid is it for you to challenge my comment when, in reality, I am expressing a point with which you no doubt agree? I am challenging Carlson's criticism of Fauci and you choose to introduce a strawman about 'both sides'. Other than an attempt to be obnoxious, your comment seems counter-productive to your own positions.
Apply this to yourself, please. When you call everything distasteful that you see in politics "partisan" you are saying "both sides" . We do not have an equivalent dysfunction of the two parties at this time in the United States. One of them is much worse and much more delusional than the other. When you just say "partisan" instead of naming who they are you are watering down the sting of the criticism they need to face.
Is that what I am saying John? So you know my position better than I do?
When I label something partisan I am talking about an unfounded or poorly supported allegation that is a political attack. A partisan attack can be against Ds or against Rs. That fact does not mean that labeling something partisan is making a point of 'both sides do it'. That is not my point and that is not what I mean.
You did not realize my comment is about Carlson??? Carlson is the current example partisan on display. Buy a vowel.
The balance of your comment illustrated your strawman. Flat out intellectual dishonesty.
My comment stands. We will have to agree to disagree about the meaning of "partisan" as applied to the bad behavior of a right wing demagogic television host.
Yeah, double down on it too John. My advice is to not come into a seed, ignore the topic, and simply make things personal.
What, you do not think Carlson is making a partisan comment? You have not noticed that a very common R partisan attack has been that Fauci 'changed his mind' on masks?
Speaking for myself and not for TiG, both sides spew partisan crap. In my opinion, the left far more than the right. CNN and MSNBC aren't even news organizations anymore. They're just leftist propaganda outlets.
That is eminently debatable. The congressional branch of government is a clown show almost in its entirety, with the left being the most obviously crackers. Right now we have troops in DC for no other reason than political drama. The left uses them to create in the minds of the unthinking that armies of the extremist right might attack at any moment. Dems are trying to convince the public that the Repb's are plotting to kill Dem congressmen in job lots.
Well, as far as the statement goes, I guess we agree. Just not on who's who.
Pretty much the entirety of what's passed as news these days isn't so much the dissemination of news but, instead, how one should think concerning the news presented. They want us to think a certain way about it. This Tucker Carlson example is a good example of what I'm talking about. If you can't see that leftist media do exactly the same, but more of it, because there are more of them, then you are either willfully blind or you approve of it even though you recognize it as propaganda.
Yes, of course, partisanship is not limited to one party. That should be obvious. Thus it is simply being obnoxious to declare that use of the word 'partisan' means 'both sides do it' which in turn means 'both sides are equally wrong on everything'. That is a naive oversimplification of reality that has been turned into a strawman argument. That is, if someone does not like what you write (or even if they do and just want to engage in an attack) they can always claim that what you really mean is 'both sides do it'.
In this case, Carlson is playing the pure partisan and unfairly attacking Fauci. He focuses on the same tired old crap (the March interview) and pretends that Fauci's updates (which are of course changes in recommendations) mean that Fauci is incompetent. This is the same attack that has been launched against Fauci by R partisans for almost a year now.
While I agree with what you've said here, I think it misses a rather important element, an example of which JR helpfully provides us with.
JR's problem with your statement is that it doesn't fit his ideological guidelines for such things, which pretty much follow the old Soviet and current Chinese CCP. Specifically, Carlson's comments are a product of the decadent, imperialistic and immoral Republican (capitalistic) regime sort of condemnation. In his view, your comments did not properly condemn or even identify "right wing" ideology as the ultimate culprit, for which Carlson is merely a mouthpiece, and therefore he took you to task for what he sees as an improper ideological statement on your part.
Because your "partisan" choice of words, it could be taken by thinking people that partisanship in media could apply to all. Apparently, JR isn't cool with the idea that the left leaning (in some cases, owned) media could be guilty of the same thing. I don't think it's even an idea he would even allow himself to contemplate. For him, the cause, informed by his ideology, is paramount and nothing else matters. So he complained about your wording.
That's how it seems to me.
Well written. About four years ago I wrote a post that criticized Trump. I never liked Trump — I have a problem with those who are dishonest and Trump is the poster child for lying and cheating†. Although my post was purely negative about Trump, a particular individual criticized it because it was insufficiently harsh for his taste. By failing to write my negative critique of Trump like a mad-man I was —I was informed— 'normalizing' Trump.
That was a major red flag. When I agree with the message of a comment, I tend to vote it up. I do not jump down the throat of the author because it was not sufficiently emotionally charged.
Basically, four years later, the same old shit continues. Here I write a post which is clearly negative about Carlson but the word 'partisan' was identified and then selected as the Alinksky-esque focal point that was then distorted and amplified into a full blown strawman. Merely using the word 'partisan' when describing what I see as the mindset of Carlson translates into an invented claim that 'both parties are equally bad in all dimensions'.
It is humorous and a rather fascinating aspect of human behavior, but after a few years, I deem it obnoxious.
† Here, my language is likely not bat-shit-crazy-anti-Trump enough for some people.
Bottom line, I do not find Carlson's analysis here to be fair and balanced. I find it to be unfair and partisan. My original post describes why.
It scares the living crap out of me, actually. It is as if there is a highly contagious meme virus out there eliminating common sense or the ability to think rationally or critically. People who think they're revolutionaries in the sense of our founding fathers, who can't wait to shoot something, cancel culture, identity politics and all the rest. Whether it is true or not, it is said something like only 3% of the colonists fought the revolutionary war. If it is even remotely true, it wouldn't take much to start something today, and honestly, I don't know where a centrist like myself would go. And that is just internal national problems. Pile on top of that all the potential for international disaster and I am honestly scared. I said long before Biden got elected that I felt China would likely take the opportunity of a Biden election to consume Taiwan. That looks more likely now than ever. Biden seems to be trying to undo what Trump achieved in the middle east. Maybe. Russia, which I take with several grains of salt, claims to be able to deliver EMP weapons anywhere in the world at Mach 20.
So, for me, what JR does seems more than obnoxious. He seems more like someone spreading gasoline in a lumberyard.
I agree. I remember when politics first became something I actually paid attention to, not that many years ago. Rachel Maddow seemed like a brilliant person to me. Then Bill O'Reilly. They all seemed to make so much sense. But, believe it or not, arguing in NV and then NT, especially against you, taught me to think more critically. Now it feels like I have to wade through oceans of partisanship just to piece together the truth in a rational manner. Problem is, we are emotional creatures no matter how hard we try to be and it is this to which pundits appeal. Sometimes it's hard to take the rational path rather than the emotional one.
Well in spite of all the more extreme and noise activity, most people (when not in the heat of an election) return to normal lives. But, as you note, it takes a tiny minority to wreak havoc so we do not need people (like Trump) working them up into a frenzy. The key thing I hope for with Biden is to offer a grandfatherly tone in contrast to the malignant in-your-face narcissism of Trump.
Proof that Carlson was wrong.
But lefties were saying that Trump should have had the answers and solutions way back in March, right when he was getting loads of conflicting information.
'You guys'? You are presuming.
If you have something that I wrote then deliver a quote. Otherwise, you should not place people in stereotypes and presume to know what they have written or the positions they hold.
And when it comes to putting me in a stereotype, clearly you do not have clue one so I advise you to get your facts straight before you type.
Can't find your quote of "But you guys. . . .) However, he DID say "lefties" - am I missing something?
He changed his comment before the 10 minutes were up.
At the onset of the pandemic, everyone was working with partial information. Do you know why?
I didn't always do it, but now I do. I quote the other as often as I can when it matters for just this reason.
Tucker Carlson, Malignant Baboon.
Oh, I guess that's not really fair to baboons.
Well...as the saying goes.."It takes one to know one."
And you're right, it's very unfair to baboons. They would certainly throw their crap at him for insulting them.