• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Tucker Carlson acted with reckless disregard /Tuckered out at Fox News

TurkeysGhost said:
This is pretty pathetic. Real "I'm having Bigfoot's baby" level of content, pure checkout counter tabloid stuff, and all this about a guy who hasn't been president nor particularly relevant since 2016.

Damn Tucker, what are you doing?
Click to expand...

You and I don't agree often, but we agree here. Oh, look, you know that president that we all hated, he was gay! Even if it was true (and I doubt it), WTF does it mean in 2023?
 
Tucker got what he wanted: people to talk about him in the media. They are all saying what a dick he is. But that is irrelevant. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HIM AGAIN IN THE MEDIA! That's his goal - to get the camera and microphone back on HIM. He's a desperately craven attention-whore, like DJT. Even if it means unzipping in public and tanning his balls with a red LED light, or interviewing a scarily lunatic crack-addict. ANYTHING, as long as he gets Likes.

If everyone had just shut up and ignored him, it would have been better. But no. Everyone has to point and gawp. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Tucker got what he wanted: people to talk about him in the media. They are all saying what a dick he is. But that is irrelevant. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HIM AGAIN IN THE MEDIA! That's his goal - to get the camera and microphone back on HIM. He's a desperately craven attention-whore, like DJT. Even if it means unzipping in public and tanning his balls with a red LED light, or interviewing a scarily lunatic crack-addict. ANYTHING, as long as he gets Likes.

If everyone had just shut up and ignored him, it would have been better. But no. Everyone has to point and gawp. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Mea maxima culpa.
 
I don't think we have to be concerned with talking about TC giving him attention on this rather obscure site .

Regarding the polygraph, David Pakman said in his YT video:

"The website White House dot com reportedly offered Sinclair $100,000 if he could pass
a polygraph test.
Now, you don't have to tell me about the inadmissibility and lack of reliability of polygraphs.
Doesn't matter for our purposes here.
Sinclair took the polygraph.
The polygraph results came back saying, oh, he's being deceptive.
The results indicate deception.
And Sinclair then suggested that the polygraph sponsors bribed the person running the test in order to skew the results against him.
Did he have any evidence of that?
No."

 
Stacyhs said:
I don't think we have to be concerned with talking about TC giving him attention on this rather obscure site .

Regarding the polygraph, David Pakman said in his YT video:

"The website White House dot com reportedly offered Sinclair $100,000 if he could pass
a polygraph test.
Now, you don't have to tell me about the inadmissibility and lack of reliability of polygraphs.
Doesn't matter for our purposes here.
Sinclair took the polygraph.
The polygraph results came back saying, oh, he's being deceptive.
The results indicate deception.
And Sinclair then suggested that the polygraph sponsors bribed the person running the test in order to skew the results against him.
Did he have any evidence of that?
No."

Click to expand...

The "White House dot com"?

The Whitehouse.comWP?

whitehouse.com is a political entertainment website that first came online in May 1996. According to a statement on the web, it was originally created by Ransom Scott as a known place where uncensored discussion of government policies could occur before adult content was added to make it more profitable. In June 2022, adult content was added back to the website.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty authoritative to me. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom