Tucker Carlson
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Danny, I'm always happy to debate with you. Give me an example of the US performing a large scale false flag attack on the assets of a country with which it is not at war and to the detriment of an ally - in this case Germany?
I'll wait.
Again Tucker the Nutcase Carlson is proving to be the mouthpiece of Putin:
Tucker Carlson tries to echo Kremlin propaganda by referring to ‘the Russian port of Crimea’
‘The goal became taking the Russian port of Crimea just because it would be nice to have that’
Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson attacked the Joe Biden administration while parroting Russian propaganda on the eve of the one-year anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Calling the peninsula the “Russian port of Crimea”, the host suggested the US government’s goal has changed to taking the port back from Moscow.
“The world is laughing, the adults are laughing. and in this country it's a measure of our media’s total corruption that no one ever asks anyone in the Biden administration what the United States is hoping to accomplish in Ukraine,” he said.
“Now, the original answer was, well, to push Russia back to where it was a year ago before it invaded Ukraine and that seemed like a reasonable and measurable objective. The public seemed behind that.
“Then, without fanfare or even official notice, the goal changed and became taking the Russian port of Crimea just because it would be nice to have that. Always, wanted it. Why not take it now.”
Carlson, earlier in January, had called suggestions of Ukraine retaking Crimea “truly crazy”, while calling the peninsula “Russian Crimea”.
Moscow illegally annexed the contested land in 2014 and, over the past year amid the war, Kyiv has remained adamant on taking back the peninsula on the northern coast of the Black Sea and said it was crucial for Ukraine’s victory.
The New York Times reported last month that the Joe Biden administration was paying attention to Ukraine’s demands about possibly striking Russian assets in Crimea after it initially refused to provide Kyiv weapons to target the region.
The White House insists Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
“We have said throughout the war that Crimea is Ukraine, and Ukraine has the right to defend themselves and their sovereign territory in their internationally recognized borders,” Adrienne Watson, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, was quoted as saying by The Times.
Meanwhile, Carlson continued to rue that Washington’s goal has shifted to “overthrowing Putin and putting American tanks in Red Square because, sure, we could manage Russia once we overthrow the dictator”.
More than 100,000 Ukrainian civilians are believed to have been killed since Mr Putin announced what he called a “special operation” in Ukraine on 24 February last year.
The toll is more than 10 times the current official number, according to the country’s leading war crimes prosecutor.
www.independent.co.uk
Tucker Carlson tries to echo Kremlin propaganda by referring to ‘the Russian port of Crimea’
‘The goal became taking the Russian port of Crimea just because it would be nice to have that’
Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson attacked the Joe Biden administration while parroting Russian propaganda on the eve of the one-year anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Calling the peninsula the “Russian port of Crimea”, the host suggested the US government’s goal has changed to taking the port back from Moscow.
“The world is laughing, the adults are laughing. and in this country it's a measure of our media’s total corruption that no one ever asks anyone in the Biden administration what the United States is hoping to accomplish in Ukraine,” he said.
“Now, the original answer was, well, to push Russia back to where it was a year ago before it invaded Ukraine and that seemed like a reasonable and measurable objective. The public seemed behind that.
“Then, without fanfare or even official notice, the goal changed and became taking the Russian port of Crimea just because it would be nice to have that. Always, wanted it. Why not take it now.”
Carlson, earlier in January, had called suggestions of Ukraine retaking Crimea “truly crazy”, while calling the peninsula “Russian Crimea”.
Moscow illegally annexed the contested land in 2014 and, over the past year amid the war, Kyiv has remained adamant on taking back the peninsula on the northern coast of the Black Sea and said it was crucial for Ukraine’s victory.
The New York Times reported last month that the Joe Biden administration was paying attention to Ukraine’s demands about possibly striking Russian assets in Crimea after it initially refused to provide Kyiv weapons to target the region.
The White House insists Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
“We have said throughout the war that Crimea is Ukraine, and Ukraine has the right to defend themselves and their sovereign territory in their internationally recognized borders,” Adrienne Watson, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, was quoted as saying by The Times.
Meanwhile, Carlson continued to rue that Washington’s goal has shifted to “overthrowing Putin and putting American tanks in Red Square because, sure, we could manage Russia once we overthrow the dictator”.
More than 100,000 Ukrainian civilians are believed to have been killed since Mr Putin announced what he called a “special operation” in Ukraine on 24 February last year.
The toll is more than 10 times the current official number, according to the country’s leading war crimes prosecutor.
Tucker Carlson confusingly tries to echo Kremlin propaganda
‘The goal became taking the Russian port of Crimea just because it would be nice to have that’
www.independent.co.uk
They walk a fine line. They know Vlad Putin is an avowed Nazi hater, right???
Carlson continues to host the undisputably best political commentary show on television.
You know why there are so few threads/posts here on TERB about other shows? Because practically no one watches those shows, and certainly no one cares what the hosts of those shows are saying (until one says something un-woke, like Don Lemon)!
You know why there are so few threads/posts here on TERB about other shows? Because practically no one watches those shows, and certainly no one cares what the hosts of those shows are saying (until one says something un-woke, like Don Lemon)!
If you were given such an education then you should know that while unconditional trust of someone is a bad idea, unconditional distrust of someone is perfectly reasonable.
If someone is a proven liar (not just wrong, but actively lying) then writing them off as useless is fine.
Any good information they have is going to get to you in other ways and nothing they say can be trusted or used until it is verified by other, more trustworthy sources anyway.
Nothing is gained by pretending Carlson is anything other than the rotten source he is.
In fact, you actively make yourself less persuasive in many ways, since using Carlson implies you are bad at evaluating sources.
This statement flies in the face of critical thinking.
"Appeal to authority" is a recognized logical fallacy, and applies to either accepting or rejecting the truth of a statement based solely on its source.
Thank you. You are expressing it better than I am able to.
That's not an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.
Carlson is not an authority and that's the argument.
In fact what you and bud are doing is using 'appeal to false authority' by posting by sources that have been proven in court to be not trustworthy.
Bud failed another quiz, this one on using fallacies.
That's not an appeal to authority fallacy.
If you want to make an argument that I am making an error in formal logic, you would say that rejecting Carlson is a Fallacy of origins.
(Actually, danmand was basically saying that Frank and Mandrill were prone to an excess of the fallacy of origins.)
But of course, formal logic isn't the be all and end all of judgment criteria, as any critical thinker knows.
It is an appeal to authority fallacy, and it is a demonstration of the fallacy on at least 2 levels. One, on its primary level it purports to dismiss the truth of a proposition based solely on the person who said it and their personal characteristics (perhaps you conflate the concepts of doubt with rejection of truth?). On a secondary level, it implies that there is some personal characteristic or qualification, absent in the speaker of the statement, that WOULD provide AUTHORITY to establish the truth of the statement - a proposition which is patently false, given that the subject of the statement is a question of mixed opinion and fact, not fact.
If you are suggesting that critical thinking is a concept that can be divorced from logic, I am not aware of that usage of the term. If you are suggesting that people make judgements on other than logical analysis, I would heartily agree, but I would say that happens far too often. Of course, sometimes a decision is required within a limited time, or must be based on limited resources. Often a decision maker simply cannot have perfect information. In those circumstances, the decision maker must try to extrapolate from the information available to conclusions which may not be supportable by strict logic. However, this reality is not any excuse for lazy, undisciplined thinking in the normal course of events.
Well, quoting Dutch,
so hell, I can see ABRAM tanks coming dammit. I have to go look for bear spray, and buy a pair of steel-toe boots and a helmet because no way the best political pundit can be wrong!
If I may add- a page of some scientific data they can suck on.
Cable News Ratings Thursday February 23: CNN Town Hall Lands in Third Place Second Night in a Row
On Wednesday night, CNN's town hall in East Palestine, Ohio also landed in third place overall, bringing in 446,000 total viewers and 101,000 demo viewers
