Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
There was also the journalist who interviewed Saddam Hussein.
Tucker Carlson Leaving Fox News
- Thread starter Husky_Khan
- Start date
There was also the journalist who interviewed Saddam Hussein.
StormEagle
Well-known member
Hell, Jane Fonda actually went to Vietnam and materially supported them by acting as actual propaganda. A country we actually were at war with!
She got away with that scot free, when she actually could have been charged with treason.
So forgive me if all this screaming about Carlson reeks of double standards.
She got away with that scot free, when she actually could have been charged with treason.
So forgive me if all this screaming about Carlson reeks of double standards.
He already says plenty, he does not need Tucker for that, and Tucker is just there for his ego/clicks and to legitimize Putin's bullshit.
It's not about fear, it's about legitimizing the lies of a madman by giving him a 'semi-credible' interviewer and feeding Carlson's ego.
This is not a 'both sides' issue at all, nothing about the Russian invasion of Ukraine is, and that is the difference here.
This is a black and white issue, good and evil, not any sort of 'grey' thing to play rhetorical games in.
It's nonsense to be upset about this.
As you pointed out, real journalists take big, spicy and even dangerous interviews to expose the public to information. Like interviewing Osama Bin Laden, or Saddam.
It's the same thing. I support those interviews, i would have supported interviewing Hitler, and I support this one because I support the first amendment, I support real journalism, and high profile interviews with leaders or foreign powers absolutely are a big deal. Especially because we will het to hear it straight from the horses mouth, in a high profile kind of way.
And we should still hear what the other side has to say.
If putin says plenty and doesn't need Tucker, then why are you so against Tucker doing this? If his propaganda was so prevalent, then what difference would it make? If your premise was correct, then this interview is meaningless. So if it's so meaningless, why are you so opposed to it?
See, I think it's anything BUT meaningless. That's why I support it.
You? You are just afraid of people being exposed to propaganda that you don't approve of.
I think that much of the questioning will be pre-selected. We'll see what kind of follow-up questions happen as well. I also want to see Tucker's reaction to everything once he's back in the states and generally safe from Putin's reprisals.
We have, but many others are very much NOT informed.
Then the proper response should be "meh. Who cares?"
But that's not the response you people are giving. So I don't believe that you actually believe this.
Most people aren't out seeking this stuff out like we do. A big name like Tucker exposes normies to new information. THAT is what you're afraid of.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
The same could be said about the glut of pro Ukrainian propaganda.
We do have, and we have thousands of pages of very hot arguments about who's lying, who's a pawn, who's an idiot, who's a warmonger and so on, without much coming out of it.
Do you think having more of that stuff, but country wide, would be a good thing overall?
It does also touch upon a wider question about foreign agenda, delivered directly and indirectly.
Why should Chinese, Iranian, Qatari, Chinese etc governments have open access to the ear of western country's voters?
Are we going to get that favor returned and get to bullshit their decisionmakers, or at least populance (who gets even less say than ours) in exchange?
Precisely. She did get away with it. There was much ink and keyboards spent arguing about whether she should have gotten away with it.
But you will be hard pressed to find people on the right who know of it and don't at least think she deserves to be called a commie whore for it.
By that standard, Carlson is earning a fair dose of screaming, and anything less than that is also double standard.
So..."I wasn't allowed to have any sort of quick retort to anything he said" seems about what he will say when it is over.
.....BBC was airing them.
Damn well every single media outlet was airing some part of it.
it isnt new information.
it's information thay has been out for over 2 yeats, and is not just "Only those who search know" kinda stuff.
for the whole first yeat damn near every MSM had something to say about it and was airinf both sides to show how evil the russians were being.
inckuding his speeches....
I dont want the right to fall into the trap of thinking russia is an ally, and that we should support them.
They hate us. They hate you, they hate every american and look down upon us BEFORE we had Biden.
BEFORE most of us were born.
Tucker will destroy any argument the right has that we are not Russias puppet...
...okay? Every news source was showing what the Russians were saying because the Russians wernt trying to hide the truth.
You don't even know what's going to be in this interview, so you can't say we have been hearing it for two years.
I can easily.
It will be variations of "American imperialism on Russian sovereign borders" or "NATO!!!" or "Western degenerate influence"
This is not hard.
In general, yes. The counterpoint should be there so we can examine everything. As Tucker Carlson said, he'll show us what's said, and we get to make up our minds.
They won't, that's obvious. The answer is that yes, we can access the populace through many different means.
Possibly, we'll see.
I like your optimism for this Monk but, there is truly nothing we will get that hasn't been repeated by Putin all this time.
Tucker has always been nice on Russian issues.
While yes we have access to them in ways, we don't have our president going on to be interviewed by one of thier journalists...
No, It's called not wanting someone who is a major voice in the Right, even if it's due to his grifting under the guise of helping Trump/the Right, to help legitimize the bullshit of a madman and make the Right in the US even harder to fight for.
This isn't fear of anything Putin has to say, I've heard it all before; it's anger at Tucker's greed, ego, and grift taking him to new lows, and giving the Democrats a fucking election year gift like few others.
But that doesn't seem to actually compute to you, if you want to continue to insist this is about 'fear' of something Putin might say.
Yer right, but it will get seen by many more people.Sure, but I'm curious as to how this will impact Tucker's opinion and want to hear his conclusions as well.
Sure, but that's not really the concern for us. It's about getting real news and world events to the populations of those countries without having been filtered by their governments propaganda arms first.
And in the end we didn't get anywhere, except maybe for having more conflicts with each other than before.
Anyone interested in examining anything can easily find this stuff on the internet, and probably did get this much and more over last 2 years, we have had both sides throw around shitloads of links in relevant threads right on this forum.
But this is clearly going to be aimed chiefly at people who want this stuff handed to them pre-digested by a journo, and in this case we know where the journo's sympathies lie, as we often do.
Will he say anything that TASS or RT wouldn't?
It's not about what he will say, it's about the audience reach.
You would be surprised. If they don't seek it out, which is more or less illegal for them, none at all. Luckily, for many reasons, some of them do seek it out despite the risks.
Even then, you are free to go to Russian state media sites like TASS and read their bullshit straight from the source, even most people in 1A free Europe are, no need for VPN even, nevermind having to worry about the secret police call you afterwards.
Last edited: