Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Carlson SLAMS stupid libs over unreported mass shootingsFollow

#1 Aug 11 2020 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Any of you degen libs have an answer to this, eh?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-washington-dc-mass-shooting-coverage

No? Thought not.

- Nexa
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2 Aug 11 2020 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
*
61 posts
huh

Weird
#3 Aug 11 2020 at 6:35 PM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
"yet you probably heard nothing about it"

What is it with bland white men thinking that they are the gateway through which all information travels? His entire editorial is based on an assumption of ignorance on the part of the viewer/reader about something that was pretty well reported.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4 Aug 12 2020 at 4:28 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Monkeyed,

No. Wrong. No-one reported it, not even Carlson. That's the extent to whicht he liberal media has sticthed up America.

Open your eyes for a second and you'll see it too.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#5 Aug 12 2020 at 4:45 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,779 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Any of you degen libs have an answer to this, eh?

"The thing is you see what you wanna see and you hear what you wanna hear. You dig?"

(who said it?)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#6 Aug 12 2020 at 6:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If you're complaining about why this mass shooting wasn't covered the same as all the previous mass shootings, you're probably asking the wrong questions.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Aug 12 2020 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Elinda wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
Any of you degen libs have an answer to this, eh?
"The thing is you see what you wanna see and you hear what you wanna hear. You dig?"

(who said it?)
MC Hammer?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Aug 12 2020 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If you're complaining about why this mass shooting wasn't covered the same as all the previous mass shootings, you're probably asking the wrong questions.


Admit it, you're salty that Carlson slammed you. And even if you're not - you should face the fact that as a slamee, anything you say is going to be taken that way anyway.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#9 Aug 12 2020 at 1:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My Youtube news channel has, indeed, been slammed. You can do your part by slamming that Like button and subscribing so you never miss any of my Liberal Media News.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Aug 20 2020 at 2:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
No. Wrong. No-one reported it, not even Carlson. That's the extent to whicht he liberal media has sticthed up America.


To be fair, Carlson isn't a reporter. He's an opinion commentator (or whatever the proper title is). He doesn't report news, he just rants about how everyone else is doing it wrong. He also likes to go for exaggerated language, like calling something a "mass shooting" that, well... isn't. Not by any standard definition, anyway.

As to the shooting itself? This is what happens when you have a bunch of mostly white angsty woke liberal millenials sitting in their suburban neighborhoods calling to defund police (in other people's neighborhoods, of course), and nutty BLM and Antifa folks taking up the chant, followed by liberal pundits and politicians grasping onto the same idiotic idea to use as a wedge issue in the middle of an election season. It puts police and mayors in impossible situations. If they had sent in police to break that party up, all it would take is a small number of people to get violent with the police (a near guarantee) and you'd have video of the police "violently attacking people at a peaceful block party" plastered on the evening news. If they don't, then it's just a matter of statistics as to where and when the bodies drop.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Aug 20 2020 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, Carlson isn't a reporter. He's an opinion commentator (or whatever the proper title is).

"Republican shill".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Aug 21 2020 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,923 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, Carlson isn't a reporter. He's an opinion commentator (or whatever the proper title is).

"Republican shill".
You're quite wise, Jophiel. But your answer is unrefined.


The word you were looking for is "liar".


____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#13 Aug 25 2020 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, Carlson isn't a reporter. He's an opinion commentator (or whatever the proper title is).

"Republican shill".


I'd say "Conservative". He's not a registered Republican, and he tends to be very critical of the party itself, so not shilling for them. I'm not a big fan of his show, not necessarily because I disagree with his positions (although sometimes I do), but because I don't agree with *why* he holds those positions and definitely not *how* he argues for them. He tends to go for the verbal rhetoric style rather than lay out a case in favor of or in opposition to something. Which, to me, comes off like a rant (hence my earlier comment). I see him as a conservative using liberal argument style, which isn't something I'm fond of.

Then again, that's because I believe that when you strip away the emotion driven rhetoric and "gotcha" style debate tricks and just look at things using logic and reason, most of the time you'll arrive at the conservative position. So we "win" in the long run if we can change not simply people's positions on things, but how they derive those positions in the first place. Using the same emotion driven arguments the left uses, just in the other direction, re-enforces that methodology in the minds of the people and allows for the pendulum to swing whichever way the rhetoric goes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Aug 25 2020 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
*
61 posts
gbaji wrote:
Then again, that's because I believe that when you strip away the emotion driven rhetoric and "gotcha" style debate tricks and just look at things using logic and reason, most of the time you'll arrive at the conservative position.


Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
#15 Aug 25 2020 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'd say "Conservative". He's not a registered Republican, and he tends to be very critical of the party itself, so not shilling for them.

Smiley: laugh You're adorable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Aug 31 2020 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
He's critical of the party, they just obviously don't air those scenes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#17 Aug 31 2020 at 2:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Carlson is a registered Democrat because, by his own words, he lives in DC and DC is a one-party town with closed primaries so there's no sense in registering Republican and being shut out of the process. His criticisms of the GOP are the usual milquetoast "They're not tough enough on Godless anarchic commie liberals" stuff and safe toothless criticisms that allows chumps to say "See, he's totally talking smack about Republicans!" and believe that it's meaningful. Then Carlson, after spending a couple minutes saying Trump wasn't mean enough, goes back to fawning over the president for another hour but let's all pretend he's not really a Republican shill Smiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 31st 2020 2:17pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Aug 31 2020 at 5:04 PM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
New moniker for trump-ites: Children of Trump, or Chumps, for short.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#19 Sep 01 2020 at 5:10 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"See, he's totally talking smack about Republicans!"
Sounds like the typical "I'm not (x), I have a (y), now here's why (y) is bad" type.

Edited, Sep 1st 2020 6:11am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#20 Sep 01 2020 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
An "<insert party name here> shill" is someone who supports the party and its members regardless of what they do. The fact that Carlson criticizes Republicans when they don't act as he believes they should means he is not, by definition, a "Republican shill".

What you think of why he does that is irrelevant. He does. You admitted it. Ergo. I'm right and you're wrong. Yay me!

Edited, Sep 1st 2020 4:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Sep 01 2020 at 11:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
An "<insert party name here> shill" is someone who supports the party and its members regardless of what they do. The fact that Carlson criticizes Republicans when they don't act as he believes they should means he is not, by definition, a "Republican shill".

Again, you're just adorable. Like a little child trying desperately to believe in Santa Claus. Never give your naivety -- the GOP needs people like you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Sep 02 2020 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
I'll note that that's not actually a rebuttal of what I wrote. Pretty much what I've come to expect from the Liberal mind these days. When you can't actually rebut the other persons statement, just call them names and dismiss them. And hope no one notices...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Sep 03 2020 at 7:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're right, it wasn't a "rebuttal" because what you wrote was nonsense that didn't deserve an honest rebuttal. Making up your own definition and then saying "This didn't match the thing I just made up so it's not true" isn't an argument that deserves much more than mockery.

If you need to nurse your wounds by muttering about Liberals, then go ahead and do that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Sep 04 2020 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
I defined the phrase "party shill". If you disagree with that definition then, you know, disagree with it. Maybe even give a counter definition. You didn't do that. I demonstrated that even by your own description of Carlson's actions he doesn't meet that definition. That's a pretty straightforward and valid argument form. You're free to ignore and dismiss it, but that's on you and your unwillingness to acknowledge basic facts and definitions.

I bash Carlson all the time. But I do it for things he actually is and actually does. I don't just apply an inaccurate label to him and sit around smugly thinking I've accomplished something. I don't like his speaking style. He tends to ignore what his own guests say in favor of his personal narrative. He tends to twist facts and logic around to make his points. His points themselves tend more toward the rhetorical than the factual.

He's absolutely not a "Republican shill" though. Demonstrably. I'm capable of not being a fan of someone while still avoiding labeling that person inaccurately. It's not a 100% "like/dislike" dynamic for me.

Edited, Sep 4th 2020 1:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Sep 04 2020 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,923 posts
gbaji wrote:
An "<insert party name here> shill" is someone who supports the party and its members regardless of what they do.

gbaji wrote:
I defined the phrase "party shill"
As pointed out a trillion times before, YOU don't get to pick what words mean; hence:

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. - wiki

to act as a spokesperson or promoter - Webster's

an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others. - Oxford





"Decent people participate in horrific acts not because they become passive, mindless functionaries who do not know what they are doing, but rather because they come to believe -- typically under the influence of those in authority -- that what they are doing is right," Professor Haslam explained.

Professor Reicher, of the University of St Andrews, added that it is not that they were blind to the evil they were perpetrating, but rather that they knew what they were doing, and believed it to be right."-Dr Haslan: U of Queensland



____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#26 Sep 04 2020 at 9:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I defined the phrase "party shill". If you disagree with that definition then, you know, disagree with it.

I did. Then you cried about how mean the liberals were to you. Then I explained that your definition was stupid and now you're crying some more. Again, you seem to labor under the impression that you can say whatever dumbshit stupid crap that comes into your head and everyone else owes you the response you want rather than the response it deserves.
Quote:
He's absolutely not a "Republican shill" though

I absolutely believe that you believe this. In fact, I would be shocked if you didn't.

Edited, Sep 4th 2020 9:12pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 3 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (3)