Enter Tuckercarlson.com

[BeaverFever]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

So where's all the "evidence" of collusion that CNN promised us 100 times, every day, for 3 years?

Why don't CNN viewers know that the FBI committed crimes during the show trial? Caswell Thomas here denied it for months here before I posted a link from the US DOJ. None of the other links I showed him meant anything, because he had his CNN-fuelled opinion and that was all there was to it. 

Why did CNN viewers just find out about the G Floyd bodycam footage this November? The two black professors in the video that was posted by Groot in another thread here had posted about Floyd right after it happened. They followed that story closely because they're activists. But somehow they claim to have just seen the bodycam footage a month ago. 

Buddy, you could watch CNN 24/7 for an entire year and still be completely unaware of some of the biggest news events in the US. 

Omg you’re like a broken record, seriously you sound like you have a mental illnesses obsessively repeating the same post in thread after thread  
 

PS you forgot the Michael Brown/gentle giant line. You’re slipping in your old age. 

[robosmith]

32 minutes ago, Hodad said:

FOX never had credibility. But you don't really need it with an audience so credulous. That's why they don't hire journalists, don't break news and don't win awards.

But that's a double-edged sword. During the "big lie" you can see from the behind-the-scenes communications that they realized they had gone too far, but were afraid of the mob of rotten-brained sheep that they had both courted and created. They were so afraid of their own audience they just kept going--and paid the price.

You're right. I have not considered Carlson to have any credibility since I first watched his show a few times, a couple of years ago. Before that, I had little evidence pro or con. I estimated that he'd told 10 lies in the 12 minutes I watch him.

There was a few times I observed Hannity and Colmes many years ago, back when they pretended to be "Fair and Balanced," and Hannity regularly browbeat Colmes. I considered that neither fair nor balanced.

[robosmith]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So where's all the "evidence" of collusion that CNN promised us 100 times, every day, for 3 years?

Why don't CNN viewers know that the FBI committed crimes during the show trial? Caswell Thomas here denied it for months here before I posted a link from the US DOJ. None of the other links I showed him meant anything, because he had his CNN-fuelled opinion and that was all there was to it. 

Why did CNN viewers just find out about the G Floyd bodycam footage this November? The two black professors in the video that was posted by Groot in another thread here had posted about Floyd right after it happened. They followed that story closely because they're activists. But somehow they claim to have just seen the bodycam footage a month ago. 

Buddy, you could watch CNN 24/7 for an entire year and still be completely unaware of some of the biggest news events in the US. 

We KNOW you don't watch CNN 24/7 so ^this is hyperbole at best and cognitive dissonance or LYING at worst.

You've been shown the Russian collusion evidence here many times, so we can only assume that you're in denial or BLIND to what you've seen.

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again :  conservatives can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion. They can’t even tell the difference between facts and emotional hyperbole   

Cliche, stupid, and dead wrong.

Leftards are the ones who chased Russian collusion, M Brown, G Floyd, Jussie Smollett, mostly peaceful protests, etc for years.

Can you name 1 even one false news narrative that sucked conservatives in like any one of those? And that's not even half of the list. There's still Ukrainian collusion, Afghan success, no inflation, transitory inflation, Putinflation, democracy was almost overthrown on Jan 6th, 70-person car crash, shot for sleeping black, Trayvon, BLM, summer of love, racist walls, covid jabs, etc, etc... 

For you those stories may be no big deal because they seemed at least partially true for a while to you - having been kept mainly out of the loop by your dodgy 'news' sources -  but I knew how wrong you were for months or even years while those stories were playing out. It was like watching a cult forming, and you burned the biggest X on your forehead.

You guys are the biggest stooges in the history of the earth and it's not even close. A bunch of proverbial lemmings walking off a cliff would be looking sideways at you. 

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Omg you’re like a broken record, seriously you sound like you have a mental illnesses obsessively repeating the same post in thread after thread  
 

PS you forgot the Michael Brown/gentle giant line. You’re slipping in your old age. 

Yeah, I get it. No one likes hearing "I told you so" all the time, but your credibility here is based on your frothy mouthed support all of those twisted CNN narratives, Beave. Get it?

You never got out ahead of any of those stories. You took them all in - hook, line and sinker. You've done nothing but shriek platitudes and regurgitate blatant drivel here for years now.

Can you ever remember a time when you said "Yeah I don't think that CNN is on the right track this time. I think we're being hoodwinked"?

Honestly, you could do that on any major news story and you'd end up being right, but you're like a kid who loses at Jenga 50x in a row win by taking two blocks off the same level. This is really simple but you just refuse to learn.

What makes you think that you have room to talk down to anyone after being so consistently and deeply wrong for so long? What do you think you were ever right about here, Beave? Name the time when you feel like you didn't play the fool....

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, robosmith said:

We KNOW you don't watch CNN 24/7 so ^this is hyperbole at best and cognitive dissonance or LYING at worst.

LMAO. I never said that "I watched CNN 24/7 for years", genius. Go look again.

Your reading comprehension just sucks, which comes as no surprise to anyone. 

Quote

You've been shown the Russian collusion evidence here many times, so we can only assume that you're in denial or BLIND to what you've seen.

?

You guys keep saying "THIS IS EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION!" but you're always wrong.

Leftards: "THESE GUYS WERE CHARGED WITH COLLUSION AND SOME OF THEM WERE CONVICTED! HAHA!!! A bunch of Russians who will never set foot in America were charged collusion! No doubt they'll all be convicted in absentia!" 

Sorry stooge. Thee Americans are actually 'People who were charged with "a bunch of things, 'collusion' among them"', but they all beat all of the collusion-related charges. As if that's not bad enough, then the FBI always offers them reduced sentences for false testimony.

It's like if I charge you with murder, pedophilia and tax evasion, only manage to convict you of tax evasion, and then leftists all shout "He was found guilty! That means that he's a murderer and pedophile!" It actually doesn't mean that at all. Meanwhile the FBI offers you a reduced sentence if you testify that someone else is a pedo or murderer. That seems super legit, right, robo? You get a couple years off of your sentence if you just lie about someone else? What's wrong with that? 

The Russians who were charged will never go on trial - you could charge them with anything and it won't make a lick of difference. So the fact that they were accused is meaningless. It just means that, while the FBI was busy committing all of their actual crimes, they laid a couple of bogus criminal charges against people in other countries. 

And right at the base of your claim is the false premise that the server was hacked. The CEO of Crowdstrike said that he doesn't know that for sure, and wikileaks said that the source was from a leak, not a hack. Wikileaks has never been found to be wrong when they've made that claim, and the FBI has been found guilty of crimes in this matter. There's no legitimate argument to be made that "Russian hackers definitely gave proof of the Dems' election cheating to Trump associates". 

[robosmith]

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

LMAO. I never said that "I watched CNN 24/7 for years", genius. Go look again.

Your reading comprehension just sucks, which comes as no surprise to anyone.

I didn't say you did. But to make a claim involving IF you did, would mean NOTHING UNLESS YOU DID.

Cause YOU DON'T KNOW without doing it. LOGIC. Learn it!

 

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 

 

?

You guys keep saying "THIS IS EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION!" but you're always wrong.

No, you're always IN DENIAL about the CLEAR EVIDENCE.

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Leftards: "THESE GUYS WERE CHARGED WITH COLLUSION AND SOME OF THEM WERE CONVICTED! HAHA!!! A bunch of Russians who will never set foot in America were charged collusion! No doubt they'll all be convicted in absentia!" 

Sorry stooge. Thee Americans are actually 'People who were charged with "a bunch of things, 'collusion' among them"', but they all beat all of the collusion-related charges. As if that's not bad enough, then the FBI always offers them reduced sentences for false testimony.

It's like if I charge you with murder, pedophilia and tax evasion, only manage to convict you of tax evasion, and then leftists all shout "He was found guilty! That means that he's a murderer and pedophile!" It actually doesn't mean that at all. Meanwhile the FBI offers you a reduced sentence if you testify that someone else is a pedo or murderer. That seems super legit, right, robo? You get a couple years off of your sentence if you just lie about someone else? What's wrong with that? 

The Russians who were charged will never go on trial - you could charge them with anything and it won't make a lick of difference. So the fact that they were accused is meaningless. It just means that, while the FBI was busy committing all of their actual crimes, they laid a couple of bogus criminal charges against people in other countries. 

And right at the base of your claim is the false premise that the server was hacked. The CEO of Crowdstrike said that he doesn't know that for sure, and wikileaks said that the source was from a leak, not a hack. Wikileaks has never been found to be wrong when they've made that claim, and the FBI has been found guilty of crimes in this matter. There's no legitimate argument to be made that "Russian hackers definitely gave proof of the Dems' election cheating to Trump associates". 

The Republican led Senate Intel committees' CONCLUSIONS mean far more that ^YOUR OPINIONS. Duh

Edited December 14, 2023 by robosmith

[impartialobserver]

Beautiful thing about America is that I can choose to visit his website or not. I watched maybe 2 or 3 minutes of his show and found it to be nothing but hyperbolic gaslighting. 

[CdnFox]

15 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again :  conservatives can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion. They can’t even tell the difference between facts and emotional hyperbole   

which is patently untrue. That's just a common opinion on the left which feeds into their hyperbole intended to dehumanize their opponents.

Which means it's actually you who can't tell the differences    how deliciously ironic  

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Beautiful thing about America is that I can choose to visit his website or not. I watched maybe 2 or 3 minutes of his show and found it to be nothing but hyperbolic gaslighting. 

Just like when he was at FOS LIES.....

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

I didn't say you did. But to make a claim involving IF you did, would mean NOTHING UNLESS YOU DID.

 

So he didn't say he did but you say if he did then he didn't really unless he did which he didn't and never claimed he did.

RoboTop go WHZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz z z zz z (thunk!)

Quote

Cause YOU DON'T KNOW without doing it. LOGIC. Learn it!

Ahhh - so you know he doesn't know because he never did the thing he never said he did which you don't know if he did or not because he never said.

And you feel that @WestCanMan  is the one who needs logic lessons.    Who'd you take yours from, Dr Seuss?

Edited December 14, 2023 by CdnFox

[NAME REMOVED]

On 12/12/2023 at 9:06 PM, Nationalist said:

Tuckercarlson.com is now a reality. $6 a month for full access.

Let's see. The most famous news anchor in the USA now has a news .com

Gee...this could be interesting. 

Most of his viewers cannot afford $6.00/month.

[robosmith]

Tucker Carlson on Trump in days before Jan 6 attack: ‘I hate him passionately’

Quote

 

Months after the 2020 presidential election, and two days before the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, Tucker Carlson wrote in a text message that he hated then-President Donald Trump “passionately,” according to the newly released court documents.

“We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,” Carlson wrote on Jan 4, 2021, the filings show. “I truly can’t wait.”

“I hate him passionately,” the Fox host continued. “I blew up at Peter Navarro today in frustration. I actually like Peter. But I can’t handle much more of this.”

“That’s the last four years,” Carlson added. “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There isn’t really an upside to Trump.”

The text messages reveal that Carlson was harshly critical of Trump in private despite regularly expressing support for the former president on his Fox News primetime show and suggesting the 2020 election could have been stolen from him.

“He was pushing voting fraud stuff. I have no doubt there was fraud. But at this point, Trump and Lin and Powell have so discredited their own case, and the rest of us to some extent, that it’s infuriating. Absolutely enrages me,” Carlson wrote.

Days later, on Jan. 6, 2021, Carlson wrote in a text message to his producer, Alex Pfeiffer that Trump was “a demonic force, a destroyer.”

“But he’s not going to destroy us,” Carlson wrote.

In one Nov. 11, 2020 text message exchange, Carlson said Trump’s decision to snub Biden’s inauguration was “hard to believe. So destructive.”

Carlson added that Trump’s post-election behavior was “disgusting. I’m trying to look away.”

Murdoch rejected conspiracy theories

In a January deposition, Murdoch rejected conspiracy theories about Dominion, according to a transcript of his deposition released Tuesday.

“Do you believe that Dominion was engaged in a massive and coordinated effort to steal the 2020 presidential election?” Murdoch was asked by Dominion lawyers.

“No,” Murdoch replied.

“Have you ever seen any credible evidence to suggest that Dominion was engaged in a massive and coordinated effort to steal the 2020 presidential election?” the Dominion lawyer pressed.

“No,” Murdoch replied.

“Have you ever believed that Dominion was engaged in a massive and coordinated effort to steal the 2020 presidential election?” the Dominion lawyer asked.

“No,” Murdoch replied.

Carlson has conned the right wingers thoroughly.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

42 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Most of his viewers cannot afford $6.00/month.

Aren't his viewers all "rich racist crackas"? 

Can't they just buy a bit less food for their slaves each month?  

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Aren't his viewers all "rich racist crackas"? 

Can't they just buy a bit less food for their slaves each month?  

Now now -  It's critical to maintain the illusion that all those people are poor dirt covered neanderthals living in trailer parks. Otherwise if the truth gets out the left might be forced to start thinking of them as people.

[Legato]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Now now -  It's critical to maintain the illusion that all those people are poor dirt covered neanderthals living in trailer 

Who are light years ahead of mealy mouthed Liberal  ne'er do wells.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Legato said:

Who are light years ahead of mealy mouthed Liberal  ne'er do wells.

SO far ahead that they've lapped the liberals and the libs see them in their rear view mirrors and think "Man are those guys behind" LOL

[impartialobserver]

19 hours ago, Aristides said:

Editorials are about opinions. They are not news. If Tuckers editorials are the truth, so are CNN's, you can't have it both ways.

An editorial is an editorial no matter who produces it. Tucker Carlsen is more about entertainment than information. 

[robosmith]

15 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

An editorial is an editorial no matter who produces it. Tucker Carlsen is more about entertainment than information. 

SOME editorials include FACTS and REASON to back up their opinions. Others just make declarations.

[impartialobserver]

32 minutes ago, robosmith said:

SOME editorials include FACTS and REASON to back up their opinions. Others just make declarations.

An editorial is going to have some degree of subjectivity.. hence why one should not view it as untouchable fact. The degree of subjectivity is impossible to measure/quantify so therefore there is no way to say definitively is one better than the other. 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

An editorial is an editorial no matter who produces it. Tucker Carlsen is more about entertainment than information. 

Worse than that, he knowingly peddles lies and passes them off as truth. He has said so himself.

[impartialobserver]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Worse than that, he knowingly peddles lies and passes them off as truth. He has said so himself.

Thats the risk that you take when you view the words of a pundit as untouchable truth. They are there to get clicks, ratings, revenue.. not dispense objective fact. 

[robosmith]

31 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

An editorial is going to have some degree of subjectivity.. hence why one should not view it as untouchable fact. The degree of subjectivity is impossible to measure/quantify so therefore there is no way to say definitively is one better than the other. 

If the conclusions are based on substantiated FACTS and reached with valid LOGIC, that is far more reliable than mere declaration of opinion.

Are you unable to perform such validity distinguishment?

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

If the conclusions are based on substantiated FACTS and reached with valid LOGIC, that is far more reliable than mere declaration of opinion.

Are you unable to perform such validity distinguishment?

Where we differ is that you can't admit that an editorial is by definition subjective. As for distinguishing.. I do not others to think for me. If I care about an issue, I gather the data on my own (if it can be done) and form my own opinion. No need to watch a pundit. 


BTW.. the validity of the LOGIC is purely subjective. I know that you can't see that. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by impartialobserver

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Where we differ is that you can't admit that an editorial is by definition subjective. As for distinguishing.. I do not others to think for me. If I care about an issue, I gather the data on my own (if it can be done) and form my own opinion. No need to watch a pundit. 

You can listen to the facts and verify the ones you find suspicious. Less work than chasing them ALL down yourself.

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

BTW.. the validity of the LOGIC is purely subjective. I know that you can't see that. 

OTC, I am very adept at spotting logical fallacies. Like yours ^here. LOGIC is LOGIC, and NOT subjective. FACTS can be more subjective than LOGIC due to the semantical variability of multiple definitions for words.