Tucker Carlson

[Nouseforaname]

 

[4merper4mer]

29 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

 

I typed a whole long reply about her extremely poor use of logic and high opinion of herself then misclicked and lost it.  Oh well.

Edited February 9 by 4merper4mer

[devnull]

6 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

I typed a whole long reply about her extremely poor use of logic and high opinion of herself then misclicked and lost it.  Oh well.

 

Dont worry.  Catturd pretty much sums it up

 

 

 

[Nouseforaname]

1 hour ago, devnull said:

 

Dont worry.  Catturd pretty much sums it up

 

 

 

I’m dumber for having listened to putins history lesson.

 

 

[Robs House]

12 hours ago, Nouseforaname said:

 

 

The logic here is pretty flimsy and riddled with straw men.

 

She's drawing a lot from the fact that Putin agreed to an interview with someone who is not openly hostile to him and unequivocally in the tank for his adversaries. 

 

It's standard procedure to conduct interviews with outlets that are not likely to selectively edit and/or misrepresent your positions. That tucker is criticized for this is a clear indictment of her position.

 

I'd be interested to know how critical she is of Zelensky, or Democrats for that matter, who decline the opportunity to be interviewed by people who are critical of them. (I've yet to see a Zelensky interview that didn't resemble an enthusiastic blowjob). Apparently this criticism is selectively reserved for those with whom the establishment takes issue.

 

Additionally, this pro-Putin contingency of the American right doesn't really exist in any meaningful way. Adults with mature thought processes understand that rarely is one all good or all bad, & rather than naively accepting a manufactured caricature of Putin, they take a more realistic view of him taking both the good with the bad. As people realize the corruption in Ukraine, and the false pretenses under which this operation has been conducted, it tends to lead one to question what we've been told about our supposed adversary, and what our true objectives in that region are. That does not translate to an enthusiastic base of support for Putin or Russia.

 

She's essentially doing 2 things here: 

 

1. making a call for us to revert to the binary thinking that permeates the corporate media, and

 

2. Proposing that interviews of heads of state are only appropriate when the interviewer is openly hostile to the interviewed, unless of course the one being interviewed has been annointed an ally by the establishment. 

 

Her post is little more than a self-serving rhetorical device designed to marginalize Tucker while projecting the impression that she's somehow above it all.

 

She's just another establishment drone, a paid whore, protecting the preferred narrative of the people who write her checks.

[4merper4mer]

43 minutes ago, Robs House said:

 

The logic here is pretty flimsy and riddled with straw men.

 

She's drawing a lot from the fact that Putin agreed to an interview with someone who is not openly hostile to him and unequivocally in the tank for his adversaries. 

 

It's standard procedure to conduct interviews with outlets that are not likely to selectively edit and/or misrepresent your positions. That tucker is criticized for this is a clear indictment of her position.

 

I'd be interested to know how critical she is of Zelensky, or Democrats for that matter, who decline the opportunity to be interviewed by people who are critical of them. (I've yet to see a Zelensky interview that didn't resemble an enthusiastic blowjob). Apparently this criticism is selectively reserved for those with whom the establishment takes issue.

 

Additionally, this pro-Putin contingency of the American right doesn't really exist in any meaningful way. Adults with mature thought processes understand that rarely is one all good or all bad, & rather than naively accepting a manufactured caricature of Putin, they take a more realistic view of him taking both the good with the bad. As people realize the corruption in Ukraine, and the false pretenses under which this operation has been conducted, it tends to lead one to question what we've been told about our supposed adversary, and what our true objectives in that region are. That does not translate to an enthusiastic base of support for Putin or Russia.

 

She's essentially doing 2 things here: 

 

1. making a call for us to revert to the binary thinking that permeates the corporate media, and

 

2. Proposing that interviews of heads of state are only appropriate when the interviewer is openly hostile to the interviewed, unless of course the one being interviewed has been annointed an ally by the establishment. 

 

Her post is little more than a self-serving rhetorical device designed to marginalize Tucker while projecting the impression that she's somehow above it all.

 

She's just another establishment drone, a paid whore, protecting the preferred narrative of the people who write her checks.

The worst of what she did is to assume everyone listening would be a mindless dupe incapable of discerning facts from fiction, half truths from reality and simply doomed to being a Putin “vulgar sucker” without the benefit of her benevolent wisdom. 
 

It doesn’t help that she’s a moron who communicates poorly.

[Nouseforaname]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

The worst of what she did is to assume everyone listening would be a mindless dupe incapable of discerning facts from fiction, half truths from reality and simply doomed to being a Putin “vulgar sucker” without the benefit of her benevolent wisdom. 
 

It doesn’t help that she’s a moron who communicates poorly.

 

 

[Nouseforaname]

 

[4merper4mer]

12 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

 

 

The first sentence of the original tweet you posted puts people into a nice box as if they were all a monolithic group.  I have no idea who this moron might be but she not develop her thoughts properly.

[4merper4mer]

3 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

 

Who do you think interior decorated this room Tucker?

[Nouseforaname]

Just now, 4merper4mer said:

Who do you think interior decorated this room Tucker?

The place looks like shit.

[Fansince88]

On 2/9/2024 at 11:00 PM, 4merper4mer said:

Who do you think interior decorated this room Tucker?

Looks more like a high school musical set

[Ann]

Episode 74

 

 

 

 

[Ann]

 

 

 

[RkFast]

On 2/9/2024 at 10:44 PM, Nouseforaname said:

 

 

 

Excuse me that Im impressed by a world leader who is eloquent, smart, knows what time of day it is and doesnt shit his pants. 

[Nouseforaname]

50 minutes ago, RkFast said:

 

Excuse me that Im impressed by a world leader who is eloquent, smart, knows what time of day it is and doesnt shit his pants. 

Then why do you support Trump?

[RkFast]

1 hour ago, Nouseforaname said:

Then why do you support Trump?

 

First off, who said I am? Second, I do see the little game of "hes mentally compromised, too" being played in a lot of circles. And that dog wont hunt. Biden is shot. 

 

And to be clear, Im no "fan" of Putin, nor do I take what he said in that interview at face value. But there is no question the man is at least "with it" and when you hear him outlining 1600s history in detail while our President can barely blurt out "chocolate chip!!!" and is refusing congitive tests, thats....concerning. 

Edited February 13 by RkFast

[Nouseforaname]

I’m ok with this.

Edited February 14 by Nouseforaname

[Nouseforaname]

Translation: he’s not defenestrate worthy. 

Edited February 15 by Nouseforaname

[Nouseforaname]

 

I’m sold.