Carlson SLAMS stupid libs over unreported mass shootingsFollow

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

"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.

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

(who said it?)

MC Hammer?

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.

"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.

You're adorable.

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

Edited, Aug 31st 2020 2:17pm by Jophiel

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

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.

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.

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