Snakes Eating Snakes

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Again...arrogance and shallowness.

So you actually disagree with my observation that you're the only ones who know bias when they see it and how not to fall for it?

[Nationalist]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So you actually disagree with my observation that you're the only ones who know bias when they see it and how not to fall for it?

Yes. I find it 'punctuating' that you insist on this line of garbage.

[eyeball]

39 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes. I find it 'punctuating' that you insist on this line of garbage.

You're really that certain of your own perfect infallibility and capacity for discerning shit from Shinola?  Why, were you issued a certificate of competence or something?

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're really that certain of your own perfect infallibility and capacity for discerning shit from Shinola?  Why, were you issued a certificate of competence or something?

That wasn't your argument. You were saying that conservatives think ONLY they can discern shit from Shinola.

I have several certificates of competence. Don't you?

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

That wasn't your argument. You were saying that conservatives think ONLY they can discern shit from Shinola.

Yes that was my argument - then you agreed with it.

Quote

I have several certificates of competence. Don't you?

I sure do, including one for medical fitness. They don't let people that display cognitive issues do what I do.

[Nationalist]

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes that was my argument - then you agreed with it.

I sure do, including one for medical fitness. They don't let people that display cognitive issues do what I do.

I did? Where?

Good. We're both competent. Whew...glad we got that covered at least...

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I did? Where

Right here.

 

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yes. I find it 'punctuating' that you insist on this line of garbage

 

[Moonbox]

On 4/11/2022 at 12:51 PM, Nationalist said:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tucker-carlson-secures-most-democratic-223803687.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFaqPXyJg1v2xmXZE0bMNyk7XvaP2-PJtiZ4ntAuuVPQhOKYejPJlF51RthzlB2HpFYg-rt7LYwfmRYAS1HtDnlp3JHRzUBy6oc22dFfV1UsW0jG67zFPJil1Goh-zor41Vq3BSRNtDaSzyVdY7YTccOKefpGDhevWyVIYs67Tqq

To have Tucker Carlson on your network, means you have the most viewed cable news show in America. Perhaps you'd like to share what exactly you mean by "a fantastical exercise in delusion."?

Or are you just virtue signalling...

There's not much to say aside from the fact that Tucker Carlson has zero credibility, peddles conspiracy theories and can't pass any possible test of journalistic integrity.  Don't take my word for it though.  That's what Fox's lawyers argued when he was sued for defamation:

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Moonbox

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Right here.

 

 

Lol...I must assume your certification doesn't cover reading comprehension. 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

There's not much to say aside from the fact that Tucker Carlson has zero credibility, peddles conspiracy theories and can't fails any possible test of journalistic integrity.  Don't take my word for it though.  That's what Fox's lawyers argued when he was sued for defamation:

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

 

Lol...so an old lawsuit is your evidence. Groovy. You're such a moron. 

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I watch some of both and they do an at least so-so job on their real news reporting.  Where FOX falls apart as a serious news outlet is in their editorial personalities.  Where CNN has/had complete hacks like Chris Cuomo, at least they live on Planet Earth.  To have Tucker Carlson on your network while pretending you're serious about truth is a fantastical exercise in delusion.  

There are more Democrats watching TCT than any other cable news show. 

No doubt some of them are just looking for things to bitch about, but it's a farce to say that Chris Cuomo or any of those other morons was more grounded in reality than Tucker.

How'd the Russian collusion farce go for Cuomo et al? That's a big part of why no one's watching those guys anymore.

How did the Kavanaugh investigation go? Did he "almost rape someone in an unspecified month of an unspecified year at an unspecified location" or was that another example of Cuomo et al lying?

Etc, etc, etc, etc....

Go back and look at any Cuomo/Lemon/Maddow/O'Donnell etc show from the last 7 years with the benefit of hindsight and tell me how well it all aged for them... ?

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This article is heavily anti-FOX but if you read between the lines at the questions they ask

Lol, here's the main part of the article:

Quote

David Broockman and Joshua Kalla, political scientists at the University of California, Berkeley and Yale university, respectively,

To say that the "study" was an effort in confirmation bias is an understatement.

The findings are best described thusly: "When subjected to CNN propaganda, some Fox viewers lost brain cells."

 

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

It also means you've succeeded at attracting the stupidest people on Earth.

Bravo?

So sayeth "WE THE SHEEPLE!" lol. 

[WestCanMan]

Anyways, to avoid derailment, the topic is A NYT reporter dared to tell the truth about something that happened at our protests, instead of just going along with our MSM's false narrative (returning the favour), and there was briefly misalignment/discord in the US/Can MSM. 

It was a case of snakes eating snakes, but no doubt they'll get over it because they're birds of a feather (alt-left propagandists). 

[West]

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Anyways, to avoid derailment, the topic is A NYT reporter dared to tell the truth about something that happened at our protests, instead of just going along with our MSM's false narrative (returning the favour), and there was briefly misalignment/discord in the US/Can MSM. 

It was a case of snakes eating snakes, but no doubt they'll get over it because they're birds of a feather (alt-left propagandists). 

The left really are sick eh?

[Nationalist]

14 hours ago, Moonbox said:

There's not much to say aside from the fact that Tucker Carlson has zero credibility, peddles conspiracy theories and can't fails any possible test of journalistic integrity.  Don't take my word for it though.  That's what Fox's lawyers argued when he was sued for defamation:

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

 

You really should stop making silly statements and using these childish pics. I mean...you've already been identified as a Libbie shill. Are you intent on completely destroying your own reputation?

Maybe you should stick to just fawning over Mikey.

[Moonbox]

On 4/12/2022 at 8:55 AM, Nationalist said:

You really should stop making silly statements and using these childish pics. I mean...you've already been identified as a Libbie shill. Are you intent on completely destroying your own reputation?

I really couldn't have less regard for the opinions of people who think Tucker Carlson is a serious human being worth listening to.  

When the Fox News literally admits that he's not actually telling the news, and the Courts agree with their assessment that no reasonable person should take what he presents as fact, there's really not much else to consider.  That you're even arguing it is a testament to your coping delusions.  

[Nationalist]

38 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I really couldn't have less regard for the opinions of people who think Tucker Carlson is a serious human being worth listening to.  

When the Fox News literally admits that he's not actually telling the news, and the Courts agree with their assessment that no reasonable person should take what he presents as fact, there's really not much else to consider.  That you're even arguing it is a testament to your coping delusions.  

And I should take the word of a Libbie shill...why...exactly?

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

And I should take the word of a Libbie shill...why...exactly?

Take the word of the Fox News lawyers who argued, and the Trump-nominated judge who confirmed, that any reasonable viewer would conclude Tucker Carlson's statements are not factual and they'd view his comments with skepticism. 

They literally defended a defamation case on the basis that Tucker Carlson isn't telling actual news, that he's bloviating and performing for his audience and that any reasonable person would already know this. 

I understand how awkward and embarrassing that must be for you, because it means you're one of the oblivious rubes who watches and believes it.  ?

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9

"Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously".

I've already linked the actual ruling if you want to read through it.  I hope that Trump-nominated judge isn't too much of a Libbie shill!  

 

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Take the word of the Fox News lawyers who argued, and the Trump-nominated judge who confirmed, that any reasonable viewer would conclude Tucker Carlson's statements are not factual and they'd view his comments with skepticism. 

If you read the whole article it doesn't back up the moronic claim in the title at all. 

TBH we all know exactly why the Playboy Bunny entered into an NDA with Trump but for whatever reason no one is allowed to say it. The fact that people act like it was the only NDA in the history of politics just draws more attention to the fact that the article is gibberish.

For example, here's an NDA story for you: https://buffalochronicle.com/2019/10/10/trudeau-accusor-lands-a-seven-figure-nda-to-keep-quiet-about-his-west-grey-departure/

Quote

Trudeau accusor lands a seven-figure NDA to keep quiet about West Grey departure

Trudeau taught at the West Point Grey Academy between 1999 and 2001 but departed the school abruptly mid-term, and without substantial explanation.  At the time he was 29 years old and retained his father’s law firm, Heenan Blaikie, in the matter.  The firm released a bizarre statement at the time, in which Trudeau asked the public “not to make things up” about the departure, and insisted that he did not leave to pursue public speaking engagements.

In recent days, Trudeau has denied that he left the school for nefarious reasons, and denied that he signed an NDA at the time of his departure.  The family of his accuser does not share that recollection and was told by officials of the school at the time that Trudeau would be bound by a confidentiality agreement that he signed prior to taking his teaching position.

Trudeau has claimed that he was simply moving on with his career.  But shortly after he left that position as a full-time substitute teacher, he took a similar but lower-paying position at a nearby public high school.  Within a year’s time, he would move back to Montreal where he would pursue shortlived studies in engineering.

You can choose to believe it or not, but why hasn't Trudeau sued the B C and others for libel if it's not? 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Take the word of the Fox News lawyers who argued, and the Trump-nominated judge who confirmed, that any reasonable viewer would conclude Tucker Carlson's statements are not factual and they'd view his comments with skepticism. 

They literally defended a defamation case on the basis that Tucker Carlson isn't telling actual news, that he's bloviating and performing for his audience and that any reasonable person would already know this. 

I understand how awkward and embarrassing that must be for you, because it means you're one of the oblivious rubes who watches and believes it.  ?

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9

"Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously".

I've already linked the actual ruling if you want to read through it.  I hope that Trump-nominated judge isn't too much of a Libbie shill!  

 

I know what happened Shill-Baby.