Jump to content

Tucker Carlson


T&C

Recommended Posts

 

 

TUCKER CARLSON: LONG STORY SHORT

 

Tucker Carlson must be the most important populist conservative in the United States. I infer his importance from the three-part New York Times series on Tucker by Nicholas Confessore assisted by the usual cast of thousands. Reporting for part 1, for example, was contributed by Larry Buchanan, Weiyi Cai, Ben Decker, Barbara Harvey, Candice Reed, Michael D. Shear and Karen Yourish. Julie Tate contributed research.

 

The Times has pulled out all the stops to make Tucker appear a repulsive character in the eyes of Times readers. They must be quite confident that Times readers have never seen his show,

 

Part 1 runs nearly 9,000 words. Part 2 runs some 9,000 words. Part 3 seems to be a collection of audio clips. The series amounts to a lot of verbiage in which up is down and white is black.

 

The verbiage is subject to a brief summary that you might guess without even peeking. Tucker is raycis. He presides over what “may be the most racist show in the history of cable news.” But of course.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/05/tucker-carlson-long-story-short.php

 

 

 

Why does the government need a Ministry of Truth when it has the NYTimes ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha 

 

 

 

Screenshot_20220502-203814_One UI Home.jpg


What’s really incredible is that they clearly put thousands of man hours into a hit piece and couldn’t up with a single accusation of racism or other heresy against the state religion. Considering the low bar for those I can only conclude that Carlson is like the nicest dude on the planet. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.

 

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."

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2022 at 8:39 PM, Big Blitz said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha 

 

 

 

Screenshot_20220502-203814_One UI Home.jpg

Truth is they'll the one's that are afraid.  Afraid of what is going to happen to them when a critical mass of the American public across the political and social spectrum figures out how they've been getting fed constant bullsheet by douche bags at the likes of the NY Times and the American Nationalist.   

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

 

 

 

Gee, you listen to the commentator with skepticism and decide what to take from it ?

 

That's how you should listen to ALL political sides.

 

The problem is when you dismiss someone as wrong................without even listening to them

 

Sound familiar ?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...