Tucker Carlson Obsession Thread (merged)

[BowlBrother85]

One side says it’s the worst event ever and the other says it was nothing. But only one was lying right?

Specifically, who said that "it's the worst event ever" ?

 

[Vol8188]

Specifically, who said that "it's the worst event ever" ?

Lol this is your argument? Semantics? Multiple have acted like this is one of the worst events in American history. Do you need names or can we agree that's been said?

 

[OrangeTsar]

That was the Repubs fault. After they were told they couldn't put their nutcase reps (who are proving the wisdom of that after giving Jordan a committee where he keeps getting exposed by his own witnesses) on the panels, they withdrew from participation, except for Cheney and Kinzinger. They regret that now.

Oh wait, there were 2 Repubs on the Jan. 6 committee, imagine that. Guess it wasn't all one source.

House Tradition was That the minority party could appoint whomever they wished to a committe. Pelosi chose to break centuries worth of precedent in denying the prerogative of the minority leader. So forgive us on the right of we do not buy the pretense that the committee was in any way „bipartisan“: BTW, how are those two „Republicans“ that were acceptable to Pelopsi faring in the current Congress?

 

[luthervol]

You mean like the original release of these videos that we’ve been shown for 2 years

Not at all. All news sources had equal access to those.
That's the whole point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[luthervol]

That level of access was highly controlled by the senate. Was it not?

So one source was selectively releasing this to show it in the worst light possible. You had no problem with that. But now one source is doing the opposite and that’s bad?

ALL MEIDA SOURCES HAD EQUAL ACCESS!

 

[luthervol]

So is it better for a network to tell viewers what they want to hear or is it better to tell viewers what the government wants them to hear?

Government - over one biased network selected by said biased government official. All day long!!!!!

 

[Vol8188]

Not at all. All news sources had equal access to those.
That's the whole point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree. One or the other.
Just not limited access controlled by the most biased source in media - that's the worst case.

They all had limited access controlled by a biased source. That's the whole point. And at no point was that ever a problem for you. Why is it a problem now?

 

[BowlBrother85]

That level of access was highly controlled by the senate. Was it not?

So one source was selectively releasing this to show it in the worst light possible. You had no problem with that. But now one source is doing the opposite and that’s bad?

The January 6th Committee focused only on the people who were breaking the law, with acts of theft, violence and vandalism. What is so strange about that? No member of that committee has ever said that there weren't also law abiding citizens who also entered the Capitol on 1/6/21.

Why do you feel such a need to defend the events of that day? It's weird how you guys are taking this so personally. I don't care how you describe the ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter riots in Seattle and Portland from 2020. You can say they were unruly mob riots and describe the participants as thugs and losers if you want to. Nobody cares. You guys are just flat out weird.

 

[Vol8188]

ALL MEIDA SOURCES HAD EQUAL ACCESS!

One source controlled the video. They leaked small snippets to media. So you're okay with one source having access as long as when they selectively release material that it goes to all media?

If so, that sounds like exactly what Carlson has done. The same thing the committee did.

 

[luthervol]

They all had limited access controlled by a biased source. That's the whole point. And at no point was that ever a problem for you. Why is it a problem now?

ALL MEDIA SOURCES HAD EQUAL ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION.

The government biasedly picking one biased media outlet to exclusively give info is the worst of all scenarios.

 

[Vol8188]

The January 6th Committee focused only on the people who were breaking the law, with acts of theft, violence and vandalism. What is so strange about that? No member of that committee has ever said that there weren't also law abiding citizens who also entered the Capitol on 1/6/21.

Why do you feel such a need to defend the events of that day? It's weird how you guys are taking this so personally. I don't care how you describe the ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter riots in Seattle and Portland from 2020. You can say they were unruly mob riots and describe the participants as thugs and losers if you want to. You guys are just flat out weird.

Cool. So the committee showed one angle and now another source is showing a different angle. Why is that inherently bad? More angles=better, right?

 

[luthervol]

One source controlled the video. They leaked small snippets to media. So you're okay with one source having access as long as when they selectively release material that it goes to all media?

If so, that sounds like exactly what Carlson has done. The same thing the committee did.

Not the same at all.

 

[Vol8188]

ALL MEDIA SOURCES HAD EQUAL ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION.

The government biasedly picking one biased media outlet to exclusively give info is the worst of all scenarios.

The government was the biased source picking what info to give out previously. Now a second biased source is involved. You've yet to admit that the 2 years of limited access for everyone was wrong. You've also yet to explain why a 2nd source having full access is bad.

 

[Vol8188]

Not the same at all.

Solid retort.

 

[OrangeTsar]

ALL MEIDA SOURCES HAD EQUAL ACCESS!

equal access to a controlled source is still controlled information FWIW
If I control the only water spigot in town, it doesn’t matter if I let everyone use it or not. I still control the supply and can turn it off or change it anytime I wish

 

[CobbVol]

Not the same at all.

You agreed that the committee was biased. Therefore, the information they provided was biased.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Cool. So the committee showed one angle and now another source is showing a different angle. Why is that inherently bad? More angles=better, right?

The problem with Tucker Carlson is not that he is releasing new surveillance footage. It's that he is framing the entirety of the day around the video that he is selectively showing. That was not a normal day at the Capitol, nor was it simply a peaceful protest either.

 

[Vol8188]

The problem with Tucker Carlson is not that he is releasing new surveillance footage, it's that he is framing the entirety of the day around the video that he is selectively showing. That was not a normal day at the Capitol, nor was it simply a peaceful protest either.

That's exactly what the committee was doing with their video releases. Selectively releasing video to frame it in their desired light. Why was that okay but this is not?

 

[BowlBrother85]

That's exactly what the committee was doing with their video releases. Selectively releasing video to frame it in their desired light. Why was that okay but this is not?

Their stated mission was to cover the laws which were being broken that day, and how the illicit activity came to pass. At no point was it their duty to show people in hallways having friendly conversations with each other. Why is that hard for you to come to terms with? Once again, nobody has ever said that there weren't law abiding citizens who entered the Capitol on January 6th ... just as nobody has said that there weren't peaceful protestors who remained outside of the Capitol. In fact, the overwhelming majority of protestors who had the good sense to stay outside, were obeying the law and remaining peaceful. Those people are easily seen on video as well.

You guys are weird. Why are you taking this personally? Did I take it personally when you bashed the rioters in Portland and Seattle? Did I bring up the fact that Fox News wasn't covering the law abiding people who simply marched in protest?

 

[luthervol]

The government was the biased source picking what info to give out previously. Now a second biased source is involved. You've yet to admit that the 2 years of limited access for everyone was wrong. You've also yet to explain why a 2nd source having full access is bad.

I've explained it multiple times.
You have yet to explain why an investigative body is required to release all information collected during the investigation.
You have yet to show where Fox requested the video footage and was denied. And if they did, why they were denied.
The investigative body withholding evidence discovered form all media sources is far less damaging than the investigative body releasing evidence discovered to one biased media source.
Release none, release portions, or release it all - just do it equally to all sources.

 

[Vol8188]

Their stated mission was to cover the laws which were being broken that day, and how the illicit activity came to pass. At no point was it their duty to show people in hallways having friendly conversations with each other. Why is that hard for you to come to terms with? Once again, nobody has ever said that there weren't law abiding citizens who entered the Capitol on January 6th ... just as nobody has said that there weren't peaceful protestors who remained outside of the Capitol. In fact, the overwhelming majority of protestors who had the good sense to stay outside, were obeying the law and remaining peaceful.

You guys are weird. Why are you taking this personally? Did I take it personally when you bashed the rioters in Portland and Seattle? Did I bring up the fact that Fox News wasn't covering the law abiding people who simply marched in protest?

I've made no personal statements. Seems you're deflecting with the "why you mad bro!" of online arguing.

Once again....why is it okay for a subcommittee to selectively release video but not for Tucker Carlson? 2 years of selective release and you had 0 issues with that. Why now?

 

[luthervol]

equal access to a controlled source is still controlled information FWIW
If I control the only water spigot in town, it doesn’t matter if I let everyone use it or not. I still control the supply and can turn it off or change it anytime I wish

Which as bad as that may be, it is still far more preferable than turning over control of that source to a biased outside party to control as they see fit while profiting at the expense of other distributors.

 

[utvolpj]

I've explained it multiple times.
You have yet to explain why an investigative body is required to release all information collected during the investigation.
You have yet to show where Fox requested the video footage and was denied. And if they did, why they were denied.
The investigative body withholding evidence discovered form all media sources is far less damaging than the investigative body releasing evidence discovered to one biased media source.
Release none, release portions, or release it all - just do it equally to all sources.

People went to prison based on the release choices made by this committee. They knowingly withheld video that directly contradicted their court room claims against defendants.

If transparency is valued then a biased committee choosing what to release is the opposite of what should happen.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I've made no personal statements. Seems you're deflecting with the "why you mad bro!" of online arguing.

Once again....why is it okay for a subcommittee to selectively release video but not for Tucker Carlson? 2 years of selective release and you had 0 issues with that. Why now?

I've already explained that there is nothing wrong with Tucker Carlson's selective release of surveillance video. The problem is that he is using that to frame the entirety of the day as having been a mostly peaceful walk through the Capitol by people who were disappointed that Trump lost the election. That is dishonest.

 

[utvolpj]

Which as bad as that may be, it is still far more preferable than turning over control of that source to a biased outside party to control as they see fit while profiting at the expense of other distributors.

It was already under some control of a biased party. It's just one you agree with