Enter Tuckercarlson.com

[impartialobserver]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I didn't say it was not accurate; I said "some people might know that the 5.4 number is not accurate."

Since I've not checked the accuracy, I don't know whether you just made it up to fool me.

nevadaworkforce.com... look at the line graph on the home page. "Some will KNOW.." is just your cowardly way of saying that you doubt its accuracy but do not have the knowledge to prove it wrong. 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by impartialobserver

[impartialobserver]

23 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Esp given his reluctance to mention FOS LIES. When I first joined, I started a thread asking right wingers about their favorite sources. Many refused to answer; including WCM and gnat man.

It is more a matter of being a one-trick pony. He does not possess the intellect to expand past this one talking point. We could be talking about a breakfast burrito in Sheridan, Wyoming and his response would be something about CNN. 

[robosmith]

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

nevadaworkforce.com... look at the line graph on the home page. "Some will KNOW.." is just your cowardly way of saying that you doubt its accuracy but do not have the knowledge to prove it wrong. 

 

AGAIN: "some MIGHT know." In fact IDK nor care whether it's accurate. I just added that to cover what might be a "gotcha" from you.

I also bolded MIGHT here since you seem to have a problem seeing tha word.

Edited December 15, 2023 by robosmith

[ironstone]

On 12/13/2023 at 12:13 AM, Hodad said:

Finally, you can enter Tucker Carlson. And it'll only cost your $6. Not bad.

I mean, he used to fark with you for free on FOX, but that was before he admitted to lying to you for several years, cost the company $800 million and got fired. 

Now, anyone who goes back is paying for him to lie to them. Funny. ?

It will probably be more successful than CNN+

[NAME REMOVED]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

His base is people who are much smarter than you. People who don't get sucked in by false narratives like you do. 

There's no excuse left for watching CNN or CBC and calling it "news", DUI. You're basically a child with adult b.o.

Tucker Carlson supporters are not known for their intelligence, considering most of what he says is not only a lie, but deliberate disinformation. You have limited intelligence, judging by your posting history. 

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

AGAIN: "some MIGHT know." In fact IDK nor care whether it's accurate. I just added that to cover what might a "gotcha" from you.

I also bolded MIGHT here since you seem to have a problem seeing tha word.

Hmmm.. the worm wriggling on the hook. So to conclude.. you care enough to respond but not to back up what you say. This is why I have such a low opinion of politicians, their supporters, and most political discussion. 

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

His base is predominantly lower-working class Caucasians, with less than a High School diploma. Often rural Americans. 

Yes and they're all homophobes, racists, bigots, and white people who are responsible for all the slavery in the world.

Sigh. The first rule of any left winger is dehumanize the opponents.

Of course what you've said is not true. but it's a great way to try to pretend you don't have to listen to any of their concerns and that anything that's necessary to attack  them and shut them up is justified.

By in large trump was a reaction to that kind of thinking which became prevalent at universities and such to the point where education took a severe back seat.

Have a look at this. It's a great short little skit that brilliantly lays out exactly how things have gone and why trump is in power (right down to the 'trump' card) without minimizing any of the real social issues. This is why there's a trump, and the backlash is happening again.

 

 

[robosmith]

19 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Hmmm.. the worm wriggling on the hook. So to conclude.. you care enough to respond but not to back up what you say. This is why I have such a low opinion of politicians, their supporters, and most political discussion. 

I don't HAVE TO backup "MIGHT," as long as it's POSSIBLE. AKA ITS NOT IMPOSSIBLE that you misstated the actual figure.

Is it semantics or logic you're having trouble with?

[NAME REMOVED]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

By in large trump was a reaction to that kind of thinking which became prevalent at universities and such to the point where education took a severe back seat.

The majority of voters with less than a college degree (high school completion or less), voted for Trump. The more educated one is, the less likely they are to vote Republican.  It has been this way for decades.

[impartialobserver]

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I don't HAVE TO backup "MIGHT," as long as it's POSSIBLE. AKA ITS NOT IMPOSSIBLE that you misstated the actual figure.

Is it semantics or logic you're having trouble with?

If I did misstate the figure then step up and show how I did. 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

The majority of voters with less than a college degree (high school completion or less), voted for Trump. The more educated one is, the less likely they are to vote Republican.  It has been this way for decades.

But that's not what you said.  You said 'lower working class'.  I hate to break it to you kid but many of the wealthiest people in america and a huge hunk of middle and upper management are not university educated. Hell even in canada where university educations are cheap by comparison most of the middle and upper middle class did not attend university.  They went to trade schools or got certified in something like real estate or car sales or the like, or worked their way up through companies. Even nurses who in some provinces take 4 year courses for their jobs are considered "hich school level' educated.

But because most liberals are indoctrinated at university, the left likes to claim that the right are some how unsuccessful backwater hicks living in trailer parks.  As you said - 'lower working class'.  It's a lie.

In fact most conservatives in the states and in canada are middle and upper middle class people who may not have attended university but have other education as well as massive experience in their fields.

Sorry kiddo - you display your ignorance when you make statements like that. Also - aren't you an ndp supporter? Arent' you supposed to be FOR the working class?

[WestCanMan]

34 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Tucker Carlson supporters are not known for their intelligence, considering most of what he says is not only a lie, but deliberate disinformation. You have limited intelligence, judging by your posting history. 

So tell me, which news source broadcast lies about M Brown, Trayvon, Jussie Smollett, Brionna Taylor, G Floyd, Nick Sandman, FBI crime, Russian collusion, the Afghan withdrawal, inflation, summer of love, covid, the origin of covid, the 'vaccines', etc?

CNN et all lied extensively on all of those topics. In the case of M brown, they lied for months and months while communities were being destroyed. 

Then CNN supported things like protests at SCJ's homes, bailing out rioters, mostly peaceful but fiery protests, comments about killing the president, civilians harassing political opponents, etc.

As an outsider looking in, knowing the truths which you all eventually came to realize, it was just appalling to see you guys lie and destroy. 

This isn't even a conversation about how badly you were duped by CNN, it's about how revolting you all are as human beings. There's no excuse for the damage and suffering that leftard SJWs caused over the past 10 years.

[impartialobserver]

If you are hanging on the every word of any pundit and not questioning what they say.. the problem is you. Not the pundit, network, political affiliation, society, etc. Pundits would lose their jobs if all they did was report objective data. They have to put spin on a topic, exaggerate, etc. or their ratings would plummet. 

[robosmith]

19 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

If I did misstate the figure then step up and show how I did. 

Ok. It appears you didn't based on your cite. What's your point? That you have trouble interpreting English, esp the word "MIGHT"?

[impartialobserver]

Just now, robosmith said:

Ok. It appears you didn't based on your cite. What's your point? That you have trouble interpreting English, esp the word "MIGHT"?

You including the word, MIGHT, is just you being cowardly and CYA.. Its cool. The internet is full of your types. 

[robosmith]

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

If you are hanging on the every word of any pundit and not questioning what they say.. the problem is you. Not the pundit, network, political affiliation, society, etc. Pundits would lose their jobs if all they did was report objective data. They have to put spin on a topic, exaggerate, etc. or their ratings would plummet. 

They can, and often do, draw logical conclusions without "spin."

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

You including the word, MIGHT, is just you being cowardly and CYA.. Its cool. The internet is full of your types. 

No, it is accounting for uncertainty and much better than making unsupported definitive declarations.

Like I told you, I was covering MORE SCENARIOS.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

They can, and often do, draw logical conclusions without "spin."

You can lie to yourself but if they came on and listed off a bunch of jobs numbers such as (job up by 1,000 in xyz state) and left it at, you would be bored and move on to something else. You want them to speculate about why and if they were too data driven, you are snoring by the end of the second sentence. 

Just now, robosmith said:

No, it is accounting for uncertainty and much better than making unsupported definitive declarations.

Like I told you, I was covering MORE SCENARIOS.

"unsupported".. tell me how my number is unsupported? 

[robosmith]

20 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

You can lie to yourself but if they came on and listed off a bunch of jobs numbers such as (job up by 1,000 in xyz state) and left it at, you would be bored and move on to something else. You want them to speculate about why and if they were too data driven, you are snoring by the end of the second sentence. 

Must be why political shows are good for curing my insomnia.

Based on ^this and your stated lack of attention to political pundits, it's clear you don't understand "logical conclusions."

SOME pundits report economic numbers AND policies while attempting to explain the relationship between them. 

I know enough about those relationships to distinguish spin from logic. As well as when they report numbers that differ from numbers I hear from other sources.

20 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

"unsupported".. tell me how my number is unsupported? 

You first posted that claim with NO REFERENCE to your source. Also with no specifics wrt method referenced.

[NAME REMOVED]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

But that's not what you said.  You said 'lower working class'. 

The working class typically does not have college diplomas. There is a direct correlation between education and income. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

 

I hate to break it to you kid but many of the wealthiest people in america and a huge hunk of middle and upper management are not university educated.

This is just bullshit.  The majority hold post-secondary degrees.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

 

Hell even in canada where university educations are cheap by comparison most of the middle and upper middle class did not attend university. 

This is false. If you have any reputable stats disproving my statement, I would love to see it.

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

 

In fact most conservatives in the states and in canada are middle and upper middle class people who may not have attended university but have other education as well as massive experience in their fields.

All one has to do, is to look at a map of electoral districts in Canada. Most seats Conservative have won in the past 3 elections have been in rural Canada. Conservatives won virtually no seats in the three major Canadian cities (Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal). Urban people tend to be much more education than rural people.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by DUI_Offender

[NAME REMOVED]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

So tell me, which news source broadcast lies about M Brown, Trayvon, Jussie Smollett, Brionna Taylor, G Floyd, Nick Sandman, FBI crime, Russian collusion, the Afghan withdrawal, inflation, summer of love, covid, the origin of covid, the 'vaccines', etc?

Well for starters, COVID is real and vaccines work, in spite of the misinformation YouTube videos that tell you otherwise. There was definitely Russian collusion in the 2016 election. The FBI has even stated this. No idea what you are talking about with the rest, as if you can provide me with any mistakes the MSM made, I would love to hear about it.

You see, that is the difference between you and I. IN college, I took media communication courses, and I choose sources that are for the most part impartial (CBC, NY Times, Globe & Mail, etc). You choose YouTube videos and FOX News to base your political positions on.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Well for starters, COVID is real

Sorta. 

Yeah, there's a covid virus, BUT it's nothing like it was made out to be.

When covid first came out the MSM talked about it like it was a lethal killer, like ebola or polio or something that our body couldn't fight, but just a month or so in Dr Oz came on TV and said "The avg age of covid deaths in America is 74, and 96% of covid deaths are among people with 1 or more co-morbidities".

I looked into American stats and Canadian stats and found out that at the very least he was right about age thing - and I'll explain this to you because I know how stupid you are - if the avg age is 74 then a good chunk of the people who died were over that age, and just under that age, and very few people who were a lot younger than that died.  

In Canada 66% of our deaths came from people over 80, and that's only 4% of our population.

So back in early 2020, I knew that covid wasn't killing young, healthy people. I doubt that you're aware of that even now, because the MSM here never talked about it in those terms but we still got terrifying anecdotes about things like "The healthy (bloated) 49 yr old who died of covid!"

Sure, it's 'real', but it was never what it was made out to be. They lied about that for a really long time.

Quote

and vaccines work, in spite of the misinformation YouTube videos that tell you otherwise.

No, the 'vaccines' don't work. FYI labs (especially the labs that produce a vax) don't get to tell you whether or not vaccines work. Real world death tolls get the final say, and they say "Theres no vaccine". 

By the end of 2021 we had over 85% of our population vaxed, but we had 30% more covid deaths the next year (19K vs 14K), and over 85% of our covid deaths were among the multi-vaxed. It's almost a certainty that MORE MULTI-VAXED CANADIANS DIED IN 2022 THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF COVID DEATHS IN EITHER OF THE PREVIOUS 2 YEARS. The only reason I can't say that it's for certain is because Health Canada stopped giving out the "covid deaths by vaccination status" stat. I can say that they were on pace for that, but that's meaningless to a person like you that doesn't have a solid relationship with math.

The reason why no one denies that there was a polio vax is because when people got it, they didn't get sick and die. Ditto for smallpox and TB. Deaths by those diseases went down close to zero after the vaccines came out. They are literally THE reason why we attributed so much power to the word 'vaccine' just 5 years ago. They really were life-savers. 

If you showed an epidemiologist the graph of covid deaths from 2020-2023 they wouldn't be able to look at it and say "It looks like vaccines were administered to a large percentage of the population right around here..." That's because deaths just went up at that point. That's not what they'd be looking for, genius. 

Quote

There was definitely Russian collusion in the 2016 election. The FBI has even stated this.

There definitely wasn't any evidence that Trump-Russia collusion ever occurred, the FBI e=ven admitted that they had none.

Of course they needed to legitimize their lies and crimes, plus the tens of millions of dollars they spent, so they acted like they had really good reasons to pretend that it did occur, but there is still not a shred of direct evidence. The FBI has even stated this.

Quote

No idea what you are talking about with the rest, as if you can provide me with any mistakes the MSM made, I would love to hear about it.

I'm not accusing them of 'making mistakes'. Mistakes couldn't possibly begin to explain how wrong they were, and how often, for so long. I'm telling you that they are liars of the absolute worst kind. 

For example, I knew that M Brown wasn't a gentle giant on Day 1: I saw video of his violent robbery the very first day it happened, yet CNN spent the first months of the M Brown riots pretending that he was a saint. 

Sure, for you it doesn't mean much, finding this out so long after the fact, but imagine sitting through all of the months of rioting knowing that the gentle giant narrative was known to be a false narrative. 

I'll say this: I wasn't there so I can't say for sure how the actual shooting went down, but I did know that Brown was a violent criminal just moments before he was shot, and police NEEDED to be there, they didn't just show up to shoot random saintly black kids from their car window, which is how the MSM protrayed the event.

If you're not aware how badly the MSM twisted those other stories, that's pathetic. WTF are you doing here talking about this topic if you don't even know the details of those other stories? They are some of the biggest news events of the last decade. 

Maybe you should be on a nursery rhyme forum, or cars, or something else that you actually know about. 

Quote

You see, that is the difference between you and I. IN college, I took media communication courses,

So you're part of the problem, not just a victim/symptom of it. Is that the point that you're trying to make here?

Quote

and I choose sources that are for the most part impartial (CBC, NY Times, Globe & Mail, etc).

Buddy, do you know what the Trusted News Initiative is, and who's in it?

I'm not even going to tell you, I'd like for you to admit whether or not you knew about it, tell me what you think about it once you know who they are, and find some examples of "disinformation" that they've combatted together.

And here's something for you to think about: what are people usually doing when they get together to get their stories straight...? Is that something that people need to do when they're telling the truth, or is that the kind of thing that liars do? 

Can you tell me about Twitter's affiliation with TNI? X's affiliation with TNI? Do you know when Twitter suddenly fell completely out of favour with the MSM/Dems/Libs/leftards? Do you know why? 

C'mon DUI, take a real stab at answering these questions because I want you to prove how naive and stupid you are. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

The majority of voters with less than a college degree (high school completion or less), voted for Trump. The more educated one is, the less likely they are to vote Republican.  It has been this way for decades.

Nope.  See - that's the kind of lie the left loves to tell but it's not accurate.  What they will say is that 'people with post secondary educations vote democrat" or the like. But - as we can see here from PEW research it's not true. In fact - college grads tend to favor the republicans with the average over the last four elections being 19.5 for the republicans and 18 for the dems. Only in university grads are the dems higher and as the universities are basically a left wing indoctrination tool at this point that's not surprising.

Those who have only completed a portion are also higher

BUT - becasue the left prefers lies to honesty they include the college numbers with the higher university numbers and claim 'educated people' vote a certain way when it's not accurate.  It would be just as accurate to say those with no education, high school or college education vote republican and only those indoctrinated by the universities are democrats.

.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/

 

This is the kind of dishonesty we see from the left.  No - college grads are more likely to vote republican. Self educated and trade school workers are more likely to vote republican. Only universities are more likely to vote democrat and it's not like it's overwhelming.

And being a college grad does not make you a lower income worker as you previously claimed.

Fail across the board kid.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

The working class typically does not have college diplomas. There is a direct correlation between education and income. 

 

Are you telling me that someone who graduates from college isn't "working class"?  What the hell do you think 'working class" is?   Where's your proof of that?

Quote

This is just bullshit.  The majority hold post-secondary degrees.

Well i just shot that down for you in my other reply.  You're starting to look stupid kid - maybe do a bit of research before you make claims.  Being wrong once or twice is one thing but you're making a habit of it.

Quote

This is false. If you have any reputable stats disproving my statement, I would love to see it.

It's up to you to prove your statement, not for me to disprove it. Lets see your stats. 

Quote

All one has to do, is to look at a map of electoral districts in Canada. Most seats Conservative have won in the past 3 elections have been in rural Canada. Conservatives won virtually no seats in the three major Canadian cities (Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal). Urban people tend to be much more education than rural people.

Sorry - first off it's not true that urbans are significantly more educated than rurals. I believe since about 2006 is less than a 10 percent difference between urban and rural and closing.  - and secondly winnipeg is urban, edmonton is urban calgary is urban ... you left out an aweful lot of urban areas that all voted conservative.  And in the previous elections greater vancouver was mostly blue -  and if the current polling is any indication it's going to be mostly blue again. So is much of greater toronto. What will THAT mean? will you be here saying educated people vote conservative?

I notice you don't have a lot in the way of facts to back up your claims.  I seem to have more along those lines.

Sorry kid - it's a fallecy that more educated people vote liberal.  It's true that people who are indoctrinated in universities (especially in the states)  tend to be that way but that's about it - and so it's not about eduation it's about environment and grooming.

Anything else we need to disprove today?

[NAME REMOVED]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

Sorry - first off it's not true that urbans are significantly more educated than rurals.

Yes it is.  It's common knowledge that people in urban areas are far more likely to go to post-secondary institutions than their rural counterparts.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

and secondly winnipeg is urban, edmonton is urban calgary is urban ... you left out an aweful lot of urban area that all voted conservative. 

Sorry next time I will make my post 11 pages long, and include all 68 Canadian cities that have a population over 50,000 people, just for you.  Then you can suck on my nutsack.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

And in the previous elections greater vancouver was mostly blue -  and if the current polling is any indication it's going to be mostly blue again. So is much of greater toronto. What will THAT mean? will you be here saying educated people vote conservative?

Want to make a bet on that?  The cities of Toronto and Vancouver have never had an election where the majority of it's ridings are taken by Conservatives.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry kid - it's a fallecy that more educated people vote liberal.  It's true that people who are indoctrinated in universities (especially in the states)  tend to be that way but that's about it - and so it's not about eduation it's about environment and grooming.

That is no surprise. Your contempt for University is understandable. Autocratic leaders tend to discourage education. Trump, Stalin, Hitler, and Putin like it when the majority of the people are uneducated peasants. You do not have the intelligence to determine what is in your best interest, so you rely on an autocratic leader to tell you what is in your best interest.