Facebook Censors Tucker Carlson for 'False News'

submitted by [deleted] from breitbart.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You're saying you had a "labor-intensive narrative"

No...

too links

Ah. I guess I see one of the problems here.

It is my position that politifact is, though.

PolitiFact has won awards and been praised by conservatives and liberals alike, and also accused of both liberal and conservative bias. Who are you, and who the hell is investingadvicewatchdog.com?

The good people at Politifact have explained in great detail why 10 TC claims are bullshit. You haven't addressed their analysis at all. I suggest you start by reading the one rated pants-on-fire.

Find TC as adorable as you like. It's 2020 and you live in America.

[–]BigFatRetard 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Politifact might have been good once, but "fact checkers" of all stripe have turned into spin merchants and Politifact is no different.

If I read "while it is true that" {main thrust of argument} "due to" {lame cop out} "we rate this as false" one more time I'm going to shoot someone.

The best was a few where they didn't even use a cop out, they basically said "we don't want it to be true so it's false" fact chdckdd! Lie busted!

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I dug into their stuff until I got bored. You want me to go even deeper down their rabbit hole without addressing any of the easy rebuttals I made. I suspected to not get any good conversation back, but if you'd like to keep hanging to politifact's reputation: care to dig up a non-leftist source that accuses them of leftist bias? And don't say that's impossible. I know plenty of slightly right moderates and full on conservatives who can smell actual right wing bias from a mile away (even if the conservative ones enjoy it). Remember, no left-wing sources, to show that balance.

[–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

No, I don't plan to accept some stupid assignment from you LOL.

You didn't rebut shit. You supported what TC said, you didn't address what Politifact said.

But fuck all that... rebut what Fox's lawyers said LOL!!!

(AND the Trump-appointed judge!)

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You started by insisting you were doing such in-depth digging but that I wouldn't dare look. Yawn. I clicked your silly links and directly quoted and then talked about (ie addressed) some third party's beefs. Feel free to quote them however you want, but don't gaslight me on what I'm doing. My responses are right up there. I totally went out of my way to address what you wanted. Now I give you the same kind of request and it's a "stupid assignment"? Just go back to your MSM koolaid if you can't converse back and forth normally.

[–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No, you didn't address what they said.

Know what else you didn't address?

Trump appointed judge: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

LMAO!

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You: "You won't look at this!"

Me: Looks at it. "Here are my comments on some quotes."

You: "You didn't look at this random part! Politifact is the divine holders of Truth!"

Me: "No they aren't. Care to meet this threshold of evidence?"

You: "No! Besides, a lawyer said TC uses comedy! That means it's all lies! LOL!!!"

Me: "I've played your game. Either be serious, or I won't bother."

You: "Here's an unrelated quote without context. LMAO!"

Me: "Normally I'd stop, but your trolling has amused me. Did you really think I wasn't going to dig up whatever crap you're obsessed with? Here's your scooby snack:

Here's the honest context that you dishonestly did not give: https://lmgtfy.app/?q=%22Fox+persuasively+argues%2C+that+given+Mr.+Carlson%27s+reputation%2C+any+reasonable+viewer%22 for the first hit so you can ctrl+f so you can get the justia link for the pdf which concludes that the specific words TC said "are not actionable as defamation". Now, aside from the obvious fact that a legal defense will go with whatever is easiest, rather than whatever is the TRUTH, care to give primary sources for why anyone would give a flying fuck about someone being salty and bringing a (frivolous) court case in order to attack (a political rival)? I mean, other than being like you and just hating the guy you don't like on TV.