Archy1221 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 27 minutes ago, JJ Husker said: So the explanation is the strawman of “people” didn’t have a problem with Bin Laden or Hussein etc. being interviewed but now they do with Putin. It’s like clockwork, you immediately fall in line with the far right MAGA talking points of the day but when pressed your position often softens. Begging us to “believe what I say, not what I do”. I guess I get my kicks out of making you walk back your crazier BS. 1 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 26 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: 1 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 24 minutes ago, JJ Husker said: 1 1 Link to comment
Lorewarn Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 3 hours ago, Archy1221 said: If someone didn’t have an issue with Hussein being interviewed, if someone didn’t have a problem with Bin Laden being interviewed, if someone didn’t have a problem with any of the Iranian leaders being interviewed, if someone didn’t have a problem with…….well you get the point, but now have a problem with Putin being interviewed because he will spew his own propaganda then that’s funny. Why does my amusement pain you so much that you have now reached the arguing for no reason stage of the discussion once again? You do understand we both agree the interview will be pointless and we both agree Tucker shouldn’t be doing the pointless interview yet you want to argue over the word “funny” The problem isn't the interviewee so much as it's the interviewer being a transparent lap dog for bulls#!t, but you already know that. 1 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 I agree with the first half of Tucker Carlson's teleprompter rationalization. It absolutely makes sense to learn more about the leaders and people we are paying to fight and kill. A good journalist will let their subject tell their story, while realizing it isn't simply "the other side of the story" but requires skill and considerable daring to challenge them on a factual basis. As mentioned, Putin has been interviewed many times by tougher reporters. As a KGB vet with an impeccable ear for propaganda and history of murdering opposing voices, Putin is pretty masterful at getting what he wants out of playing to Western media. He has saved his post-Ukraine slot for Tucker. And yes, plenty of other despots have sat down for interviews with western journalists. Did people have a problem with that? Some sure did, especially if they thought the dictator was using the interview for propaganda purposes, which they are 100% of the time. It is mitigated somewhat when the interviewer is a Christine Amanpour type who asks the fearless questions everyone wants to ask to the despots face. Does anyone remember softening their views on "the other side of the story" when they learn where Arafat, el-Assad, bin Laden, or Slobodan Milosevic is really coming from? More to the point, imagine a CNN reporter getting an exclusive with Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and letting him ask why U.S. taxpayers are spending billions arming a country that is engaging in apartheid and genocide against its own people. Would these same Tucker Carlson defenders absolutely blow a nut? As for the rest of the non-Tucker Carlson media lying to the American people with a false, manufactured narrative, here's that narrative: Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine as part of his non-secret ambition to reconstitute at least some of the Soviet empire. Vlodymir Zelensky, a former comic actor charged with revamping a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian government, has overseen a surprisingly successful defense against a much superior military, leading a people who passionately oppose Russia's ambitions in the name of self-determination. While the U.S. and other countries were quick to supply arms and aid to Ukraine, the protracted war has put a strain on everybody. While Russia and Putin should be embarrassed, they soldier on. Zelensky will say and do anything at this point to secure what he needs to defend his country, while international attention drifts to new threats and flashpoints. The war has reignited old Cold War alignments, but the governments that support Russia's "side of the story" are a small collection of U.S. adversaries including Iran, Syria, and China. Former and potential future U.S. president Donald Trump has broken tradition by siding with Putin for reasons Trump himself has never made clear, beyond, perhaps, his admiration for political strongmen who flatter him. Many in the Republican party and conservative media, like Tucker Carlson, have followed suit. At least that's what I've learned from the mainstream media the past couple years. If Tucker Carlson wants to tell me which part of the above I got wrong, I promise to listen to the smirky little motherf#&%er. 1 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: 1 1 Link to comment
teachercd Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 57 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: HAHAHA! And some of you still think they are not commies! f#&%ing unreal! 1 Link to comment
Scarlet Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Tucks with that look of your life flashing before your eyes. Gulp. 1 Link to comment
commando Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 it's not an error in translation...putin really said this. it really is worth listening to that shmuck Link to comment
Recommended Posts