|
|
Post by uwphoto on Oct 29, 2021 16:19:48 GMT -8
So, since when does the far right love little trust babies from La Jolla? He's laughing all the way to the bank making $$ off the "poorly educated". what a fuggin joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 8, 2021 0:46:41 GMT -8
Tucker Carlson is an a-hole.
He's a puppet of the far right. He spouts absurd nonsense on a daily basis. There have been far better, far smarter conservative commentators before, and how this guy rose to the top is beyond me.
William F. Buckley Jr must be rolling over in his grave because of the state of the Republican party, and the conservative commentators commenting on the events of the day. He'd be truly disgusted at the absolute lack of critical thinking and common sense. The lowest common denomenator style of people like Carlson is pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Nov 8, 2021 4:51:21 GMT -8
Tucker Carlson is an a-hole. He's a puppet of the far right. He spouts absurd nonsense on a daily basis. There have been fa[r/i] better, far smarter conservative commentators before, and how this guy rose to the top is beyond me.
William F. Buckley Jr must be rolling over in his grave because of the state of the Republican party, and the conservative commentators commenting on the events of the day. He'd be truly disgusted at the absolute lack of critical thinking and common sense. The lowest common denomenator style of people like Carlson is pathetic.Interesting you would mention Buckley. I used to watch him back in the day. The difference was the critical thinking. Rush Limbaugh, who just had a high school degree, developed a cult following by using the opposite of critical thinking. No matter the talking point/subject, he painted a picture that put the "opposition" in one eazy box. Like "environmental wackos". Sure you could find cult like non critical thinkers in the environmental field such as PETA and paint them that way. However Limbaugh painted the entire environmental field as wackos, including hard working fish biologists, climate scientists , geologists etc. This made it easy for his non critical thinking audience to digest his points and say "Dittos"!! Trump saw this early on and realized this kind of audience was like candy from baby to manipulate. When he said "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and not lose any supporters"...he wasn't lying. Carlson sees the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Nov 8, 2021 20:09:38 GMT -8
Tucker Carlson is an a-hole. He's a puppet of the far right. He spouts absurd nonsense on a daily basis. There have been far better, far smarter conservative commentators before, and how this guy rose to the top is beyond me. William F. Buckley Jr must be rolling over in his grave because of the state of the Republican party, and the conservative commentators commenting on the events of the day. He'd be truly disgusted at the absolute lack of critical thinking and common sense. The lowest common denomenator style of people like Carlson is pathetic. I'll bet Tucker Carlson's absolute lack of critical thinking and common sense has him ignoring the pressing issue of tree equity. Pathetic indeed! |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 10, 2021 18:51:44 GMT -8
Jackass. "I guess," we should support democracies over authoritarian autocracies. I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Nov 10, 2021 19:53:57 GMT -8
Phuker Carlson = All American dildo!
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 11, 2021 10:21:08 GMT -8
Tucker Carlson is an a-hole. He's a puppet of the far right. He spouts absurd nonsense on a daily basis. There have been far better, far smarter conservative commentators before, and how this guy rose to the top is beyond me. William F. Buckley Jr must be rolling over in his grave because of the state of the Republican party, and the conservative commentators commenting on the events of the day. He'd be truly disgusted at the absolute lack of critical thinking and common sense. The lowest common denomenator style of people like Carlson is pathetic. Chris Wallace may be the only bastion of critical thinking left on the network |
|
|
|
Post by Obsidian Edge on Nov 18, 2021 14:37:09 GMT -8
Tucker Carlson is an a-hole. He's a puppet of the far right. He spouts absurd nonsense on a daily basis. There have been far better, far smarter conservative commentators before, and how this guy rose to the top is beyond me. William F. Buckley Jr must be rolling over in his grave because of the state of the Republican party, and the conservative commentators commenting on the events of the day. He'd be truly disgusted at the absolute lack of critical thinking and common sense. The lowest common denomenator style of people like Carlson is pathetic. I think Tucker Carlson would be the first person to acknowledge he's not some kind of intellectual giant and has never made that claim. What gave you that impression? He's a news anchor. His appeal is that he has an ability to expose the frequent hypocrisy and contradictions of others and ask basic questions that aren't being asked by other corporate news outlets. How will flooding the market with more dollars help inflation? Why are gas prices so high? Why must we ignore biology? Why are we being coerced into taking experimental medical therapies? Why is it "racist" to be patriotic? He does this in a very methodical and relatable way that resonates with people pondering the same questions. Obviously, he does this from a conservative perspective, but I have only known him to skirt truth on one occasion. Otherwise, he does a very good job relying on facts and the transcripts, videos, interviews of those events or people he reports on. In contrast, most of the "reporting" and commentary I see from his competitors is often complete misinformation blended with political talking points. Tucker presents factual info from a conservative perspective whereas his competition is basically propaganda masquerading as news. Which probably helps explain some of the odd characterizations of him in this thread. Try watching one of his segments with an open mind. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 18, 2021 16:19:05 GMT -8
Tucker Carlson is an a-hole. He's a puppet of the far right. He spouts absurd nonsense on a daily basis. There have been far better, far smarter conservative commentators before, and how this guy rose to the top is beyond me. William F. Buckley Jr must be rolling over in his grave because of the state of the Republican party, and the conservative commentators commenting on the events of the day. He'd be truly disgusted at the absolute lack of critical thinking and common sense. The lowest common denomenator style of people like Carlson is pathetic. I think Tucker Carlson would be the first person to acknowledge he's not some kind of intellectual giant and has never made that claim. What gave you that impression? He's a news anchor. His appeal is that he has an ability to expose the frequent hypocrisy and contradictions of others and ask basic questions that aren't being asked by other corporate news outlets. How will flooding the market with more dollars help inflation? Why are gas prices so high? Why must we ignore biology? Why are we being coerced into taking experimental medical therapies? Why is it "racist" to be patriotic? He does this in a very methodical and relatable way that resonates with people pondering the same questions. Obviously, he does this from a conservative perspective, but I have only known him to skirt truth on one occasion. Otherwise, he does a very good job relying on facts and the transcripts, videos, interviews of those events or people he reports on. In contrast, most of the "reporting" and commentary I see from his competitors is often complete misinformation blended with political talking points. Tucker presents factual info from a conservative perspective whereas his competition is basically propaganda masquerading as news. Which probably helps explain some of the odd characterizations of him in this thread. Try watching one of his segments with an open mind. First, he is NOT a reporter or a, "News anchor." He is a commentator. He presents his OPINIONS. Second, there isn't a fact he couldn't distort or flat out lie about. The documented number of times he has either bent the truth or flat out lied is staggering. Third, he's just stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously, but he is. He's an influencer, and that's truly frightening. |
|
|
|
Post by Obsidian Edge on Nov 18, 2021 16:22:24 GMT -8
I think Tucker Carlson would be the first person to acknowledge he's not some kind of intellectual giant and has never made that claim. What gave you that impression? He's a news anchor. His appeal is that he has an ability to expose the frequent hypocrisy and contradictions of others and ask basic questions that aren't being asked by other corporate news outlets. How will flooding the market with more dollars help inflation? Why are gas prices so high? Why must we ignore biology? Why are we being coerced into taking experimental medical therapies? Why is it "racist" to be patriotic? He does this in a very methodical and relatable way that resonates with people pondering the same questions. Obviously, he does this from a conservative perspective, but I have only known him to skirt truth on one occasion. Otherwise, he does a very good job relying on facts and the transcripts, videos, interviews of those events or people he reports on. In contrast, most of the "reporting" and commentary I see from his competitors is often complete misinformation blended with political talking points. Tucker presents factual info from a conservative perspective whereas his competition is basically propaganda masquerading as news. Which probably helps explain some of the odd characterizations of him in this thread. Try watching one of his segments with an open mind. First, he is NOT a reporter or a, "News anchor." He is a commentator. He presents his OPINIONS. Second, there isn't a fact he couldn't distort or flat out lie about. The documented number of times he has either bent the truth or flat out lied is staggering. Third, he's just stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously, but he is. He's an influencer, and that's truly frightening. Fair enough. A news commentator. My points still stand. If he's lied so much, it shouldn't be hard to provide an example. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Nov 18, 2021 16:34:05 GMT -8
First, he is NOT a reporter or a, "News anchor." He is a commentator. He presents his OPINIONS. Second, there isn't a fact he couldn't distort or flat out lie about. The documented number of times he has either bent the truth or flat out lied is staggering. Third, he's just stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously, but he is. He's an influencer, and that's truly frightening. Fair enough. A news commentator. My points still stand. If he's lied so much, it shouldn't be hard to provide an example.
You are correct, plenty of examples: www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?speaker=tucker-carlson |
|
|
|
Post by Obsidian Edge on Nov 18, 2021 18:13:14 GMT -8
Just so you are aware, Politifact is a biased political organization claiming to be an unbiased "fact checker." I'm not going to go line by line to address all of these, but I'll just take the top claim as a sample. It says that Tucker claimed "Federal agents directly incited people on Jan. 6" and that this is "False." The problem is that he's never made that claim. The article itself reveals that Tucker asserts this is a possibility, but he never said definitively that this is the case. So why is the article claiming he did? The Politifact article goes on to assert "Tucker provides no evidence" for his suspicions. This again is false as Tucker indeed provides supporting information for his opinion. I'm certain you could go line by line and address each of these Politifact claims and find the same. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 18, 2021 18:40:48 GMT -8
Just so you are aware, Politifact is a biased political organization claiming to be an unbiased "fact checker." I'm not going to go line by line to address all of these, but I'll just take the top claim as a sample. It says that Tucker claimed "Federal agents directly incited people on Jan. 6" and that this is "False." The problem is that he's never made that claim. The article itself reveals that Tucker asserts this is a possibility, but he never said definitively that this is the case. So why is the article claiming he did? The Politifact article goes on to assert "Tucker provides no evidence" for his suspicions. This again is false as Tucker indeed provides supporting information for his opinion. I'm certain you could go line by line and address each of these Politifact claims and find the same. He STRONGLY asserts it as a possiblity, states that he believes it's true - even though there is clear evidence that it is false (and no legitimate evidence to back up such an outlandish, partisan fairy tale). That's what he does. He presents misinformation, couched as opinions and beliefs, and his viewers believe it to be fact when, in fact, these claims are almost always absolute falsehoods. LIES presesnted as opinions and sold to the sheep. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Nov 18, 2021 19:12:56 GMT -8
Just so you are aware, Politifact is a biased political organization claiming to be an unbiased "fact checker." I'm not going to go line by line to address all of these, but I'll just take the top claim as a sample. It says that Tucker claimed "Federal agents directly incited people on Jan. 6" and that this is "False." The problem is that he's never made that claim. The article itself reveals that Tucker asserts this is a possibility, but he never said definitively that this is the case. So why is the article claiming he did? The Politifact article goes on to assert "Tucker provides no evidence" for his suspicions. This again is false as Tucker indeed provides supporting information for his opinion. I'm certain you could go line by line and address each of these Politifact claims and find the same. He STRONGLY asserts it as a possiblity, states that he believes it's true - even though there is clear evidence that it is false (and no legitimate evidence to back up such an outlandish, partisan fairy tale). That's what he does. He presents misinformation, couched as opinions and beliefs, and his viewers believe it to be fact when, in fact, these claims are almost always absolute falsehoods. LIES presesnted as opinions and sold to the sheep. People are making a lot of money off of an audience that is predictable ("I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters") and incapable of critical thought. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 18, 2021 19:42:48 GMT -8
He STRONGLY asserts it as a possiblity, states that he believes it's true - even though there is clear evidence that it is false (and no legitimate evidence to back up such an outlandish, partisan fairy tale). That's what he does. He presents misinformation, couched as opinions and beliefs, and his viewers believe it to be fact when, in fact, these claims are almost always absolute falsehoods. LIES presesnted as opinions and sold to the sheep. People are making a lot of money off of an audience that is predictable ("I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters") and incapable of critical thought. Sadly, you're right. I grew up in the era of William F. Buckley Jr. and other intellectual Conservative Republicans who were rational, reasonable, and thoughtful. They ran the party. But after Bill Clinton, the Republican Party lost their minds. It became more and more contentious every year. By the time Donald Trump got the nomination the party had devolved into something far less intellectual, where partisan politics was more important than the best interests of the country. Both parties were guilty of that, but the Republicans seemed much angrier, and their voters followed suit. Trump just unleashed all the anger and hatred, and it got to the point where using facts and the truth to win arguments wasn't enough - to crush the opposition distorting the facts and twisting the truth became acceptable if the result was a loss for the Democrats. The Big Lie was just the inevitable and predictable conclusion of that path. And people like Tucker Carlson are major players in the spreadin of the lies, and the twisting of the truth so that his audience would buy almost anything that Trump and his lackeys in the Republican party had to say, no matter how outlandish and obviously false it was. Buckley must be rolling over in his grave. His beloved party has become the party of the lowest common denominator, to the point where high school dropouts can become Congressmen/women under the Republican banner because they follow Trump's example and spread his lies. It's really quite sad. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Nov 18, 2021 20:31:32 GMT -8
What next? Pouting about Bill Maher?
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 19, 2021 0:14:23 GMT -8
Jackass. "I guess," we should support democracies over authoritarian autocracies. I guess. I'm not here to defend Tucker Carlson as a person, but what I will say is that he makes a valid point with regards to who we as a country choose to trade with. We trade with China (China is our biggest trade partner in fact), despite the country being ruled by a one party system where the media and internet are censored, and they have been horrible human rights violations. Why? Because China and the US are the two biggest economies in the world. So why should we trade with China but not Russia? As a relic of the Cold War? Speaking of which, China recently landed on the (far side) of the moon, they recently sent a test intercontinental ballistic missile around the world and had it come very close to directly impacting it's target in China, and their nuclear stockpile grows. It is a valid point. Is it good/bad to trade with authoritarian governments? There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Cutting off trade can make tensions between countries worse. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 19, 2021 0:17:30 GMT -8
Jackass. "I guess," we should support democracies over authoritarian autocracies. I guess. I'm not here to defend Tucker Carlson as a person, but what I will say is that he makes a valid point with regards to who we as a country choose to trade with. We trade with China (China is our biggest trade partner in fact), despite the country being ruled by a one party system where the media and internet are censored, and they have been horrible human rights violations. Why? Because China and the US are the two biggest economies in the world. So why should we trade with China but not Russia? As a relic of the Cold War? Speaking of which, China recently landed on the (far side) of the moon, they recently sent a test intercontinental ballistic missile around the world and had it come very close to directly impacting it's target in China, and their nuclear stockpile grows. It is a valid point. Is it good/bad to trade with authoritarian governments? There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Cutting off trade can make tensions between countries worse. This wasn't about trade. It was about which side we take in a conflict. Do we side with a legitimate Democracy, or an autocracy bent on expansion through the use of force? |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Nov 19, 2021 6:56:56 GMT -8
Jackass. "I guess," we should support democracies over authoritarian autocracies. I guess. I'm not here to defend Tucker Carlson as a person, but what I will say is that he makes a valid point with regards to who we as a country choose to trade with. We trade with China (China is our biggest trade partner in fact), despite the country being ruled by a one party system where the media and internet are censored, and they have been horrible human rights violations. Why? Because China and the US are the two biggest economies in the world. So why should we trade with China but not Russia? As a relic of the Cold War? Speaking of which, China recently landed on the (far side) of the moon, they recently sent a test intercontinental ballistic missile around the world and had it come very close to directly impacting it's target in China, and their nuclear stockpile grows. It is a valid point. Is it good/bad to trade with authoritarian governments? There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Cutting off trade can make tensions between countries worse. trade and mutual global connections is all that keeps the super powers from potentially blowing us all to kingdom come. Are the "maga" hats still made in China? |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Nov 19, 2021 6:58:48 GMT -8
What next? Pouting about Bill Maher? Maher does generate critical thought in his audiences. Are you missing saying "dittos"? |
|
