Enter Tuckercarlson.com

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

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

Nobody ever said they were rich. They are mostly the uneducated unskilled victims of Ronald Reagan’s style of laissez-faire capitalism 

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

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

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.

Wow... so if I state a fact.. Nevada's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 5.4 for October 2023.. does it matter who reads it? Does the reality change if you read this or I do? This should be good. 

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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  

No you had a whole series of posts not too long ago attempting to claim that opinions are facts. Have you forgotten already?

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

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

Keep in mind that Tucker's comparables are people like Joy Reid, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Anderson Cooper, etc. They're such sub-human liars and trolls that they make Tucker look like a truth guru. 

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Wow... so if I state a fact.. Nevada's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 5.4 for October 2023.. does it matter who reads it? Does the reality change if you read this or I do? This should be good. 

Did you miss the meaning of "can be"? Of course your statement would be even less semantically ambiguous if it referenced the specifically defined measurement of "unemployment rate." There are several, you know.

[BeaverFever]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

frothy mouthed support all of those twisted CNN narratives, Beave. Get it?

My “frothy mouthed support” for any “CNN narrative” is another figment of your imagination. Amd from what I can tell most of the “CNN narratives” you allege are also made up by you. 

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Did you miss the meaning of "can be"? Of course your statement would be even less semantically ambiguous if it referenced the specifically defined measurement of "unemployment rate." There are several, you know.

When it comes to state unemployment rates.. we only use the u-3. u-6 is not as reliable for smaller sample sizes hence why it is mostly a nationwide measure. So again, does saying that the seasonally adjusted u-3 unemployment rate for October 2023 for the state of Nevada is 5.4% change depending on who reads it? 

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, robosmith said:

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

 

So that's basically confirmation bias at work. If you don't like  a fact or find it 'suspicious' then you distrust or discount it. Facts you agree  with are fine tho

Quote

OTC, I am very adept at spotting logical fallacies

ROFLMAO!!!!!  So basically you mean you own a mirror.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

When it comes to state unemployment rates.. we only use the u-3. u-6 is not as reliable for smaller sample sizes hence why it is mostly a nationwide measure. So again, does saying that the seasonally adjusted u-3 unemployment rate for October 2023 for the state of Nevada is 5.4% change depending on who reads it? 

Technically, no. But it does ignore context which may be more important to some than others. Like the trend...

What also might be different is some people might know that the 5.4 number is not accurate.

Edited December 15, 2023 by robosmith

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Nobody ever said they were rich. They are mostly the uneducated unskilled victims of Ronald Reagan’s style of laissez-faire capitalism 

Doesn't it suck that all those uneducated, unskilled Reaganomics drones are always right and you're always wrong?

Shouldn't you be on the right side of a debate once in a while if you're so superior? Or even just once? 

How is it that you always end up being the credulous dolt, just gazing at distant dust clouds after all the clueless yokels have whizzed by? 

Why is it that all the smartest pundits and activists are always conservatives? 

Here's the thing, Beave: all of your best comebacks are just sandbox insults. Did you ever wonder why that is? Why is it that you, with your vast education and intellectual superiority, never get to be the guy throwing down facts and doing a mic drop? The joke's always on you yet you keep quoting the same sources that left you in the lurch, time and time again. 

I'll admit that I watched CNN casually about 10 years ago, but I knew enough to ditch them as a news source the day I saw that M Brown wasn't a gentle giant at all and the gentle giant narrative was providing the justification for violent riots that were destroying communities. Somehow you still haven't learned after all this time. We're 20 M Browns in since 2014, but there you are waving the pom-poms just as convinced as ever that today's going to be your day. 

Grab a mirror dude. Go back and look at your old posts, and see how well they've aged. You'll find yourself looking at pile o' manure instead of pinot noire.

[WestCanMan]

30 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

My “frothy mouthed support” for any “CNN narrative” is another figment of your imagination. Amd from what I can tell most of the “CNN narratives” you allege are also made up by you. 

Sure thing, collusion boy. You never get sucked in by CNN's BS ?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No you had a whole series of posts not too long ago attempting to claim that opinions are facts. Have you forgotten already?

I suspect you misread it/are misrepresenting it/are making it up   But sure - point me to this group of posts where i claimed opinion is synonymous with fact

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Sure thing, collusion boy. You never get sucked in by CNN's BS ?

Interesting how people who hardly ever watch CNN are "sucked in" but those who live on a diet of FOX are exclusive owners of the truth.

As far as MSNBC goes, it is the left's version of FOX.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Sure thing, collusion boy. You never get sucked in by CNN's BS ?

ROTFL!

Says the guy who thinks Putin’s press releases are 100% believable, Ukraine is run by Jewish Nazis, and that the 2020 election was stolen

[NAME REMOVED]

11 hours 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?  

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

[Nationalist]

16 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Most of his viewers cannot afford $6.00/month.

Well that's insulting.

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, Aristides said:

Interesting how people who hardly ever watch CNN are "sucked in" but those who live on a diet of FOX are exclusive owners of the truth.

As far as MSNBC goes, it is the left's version of FOX.

Congratulations on making some generalizations and childish insults. Am I supposed to be impressed?

When I say CNN is always lying/wrong I give a laundry list of examples, for which you have no reply. 

We both know what's up, but you've been lying for so long that it just feels normal for you. 

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

ROTFL!

Says the guy who thinks Putin’s press releases are 100% believable, Ukraine is run by Jewish Nazis, and that the 2020 election was stolen

I've never said anything about Putin's press conferences or Jewish Nazis, and it's ridiculous to assume that the Dems stopped cheating on elections in 2020, they just didn't get caught that year. 

That's no surprise though, considering that the FBI was already committing crimes for them. Who was supposed to do the catching? 

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

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

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.

[Hodad]

15 minutes 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. 

?

Jeebus, dude, are you trying to break everyone's irony detector? The guy literally got fired (and cost his company $800M) for selling you a "big lie." Not something wrong. Not a mistake. Not a different perspective. But a massive lie with massive implications that he knew all along was a lie. 

And, amazingly, even after the liars have admitted to lying to you, you STILL believe and repeat the lies.

It's not just stupid. It's pitiful. Like, honestly deserving of pity. I want to give you a cookie and a stuffed animal.

[impartialobserver]

17 hours ago, robosmith said:

Technically, no. But it does ignore context which may be more important to some than others. Like the trend...

What also might be different is some people might know that the 5.4 number is not accurate.

how do you know it not accurate? I challenge you to show exact methodological details and where we get it wrong. Now..no copping out and giving me a bunch of opinions and conceptual nonsense. Lets see an exact data-driven formulation.. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by impartialobserver

[impartialobserver]

I wonder what a certain someone would do if they could not mention CNN.. Not sure, he would know what to do. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I've never said anything about Putin's press conferences or Jewish Nazis, and it's ridiculous to assume that the Dems stopped cheating on elections in 2020, they just didn't get caught that year. 

That's no surprise though, considering that the FBI was already committing crimes for them. Who was supposed to do the catching? 

Why don't YOU PROVE with EVIDENCE the years that Dems did get caught cheating?

And not with quotes from FOS LIES.

I'm betting you never will.

I once asked another right winger to prove that Dems cheated to get Kennedy elected.

All he could come up with was ONE LAWSUIT and NO PROOF.

[robosmith]

50 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

how do you know it not accurate? I challenge you to show exact methodological details and where we get it wrong. Now..no copping out and giving me a bunch of opinions and conceptual nonsense. Lets see an exact data-driven formulation.. 

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.

[robosmith]

50 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I wonder what a certain someone would do if they could not mention CNN.. Not sure, he would know what to do. 

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.