Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you think about Tucker Carlson?
I've been injured and had some down time lately to watch his interviews ad nauseum.

I think he's pretty legit but he gets goofy when he debates atheists. that's the only time i really see him lose his logic.

https://youtu.be/QKWc_mMal1A

I want others to break down different interviews and how he was LOGICALLY incorrect or correct.

I think you linked the wrong video.

Tucker is hilarious, especially when he owns retarded leftists on his show, which seems to be on a daily basis.

b-PhrEDlBk8

He can ask some good questions when he wants to. And he's not a dummy. But he usually just comes off as thinking he's much smarter and wittier than he actually is.

Also his voice and personality are very annoying.

Originally posted by BackFire
Also his voice and personality are very annoying.

He does lay the smack on some nubs, for sure.


But...very rarely has he gotten a very intelligent, well-reasoned person on his show. He does that on purpose. Why would he want someone that could punch back?



However, he's not after the well-reasoned and intelligent people. He probably agrees with many of them. He's after the idiots and morons whose voices are too loud.




His personality...he's such an asshat. The dickbag that wanted to argue with everyone in college and went out of his way to cause problems.

Originally posted by Surtur
Tucker is hilarious, especially when he owns retarded leftists on his show, which seems to be on a daily basis.

b-PhrEDlBk8

aFQFB5YpDZE

Neither can hold a candle to the Gavin!!!!!!

Ho3-mLz75i4

LOL Tucker is a hack

9Th5KwBo8_A

the problem with talk shows is they on'y foster people who argue sh!t their fanbase considers stupid. It's not about discussion, it's about an espn-esque yelling match, and no one does that better than fox and cnn.

Originally posted by Firefly218
LOL Tucker is a hack

9Th5KwBo8_A
In a nutshell:
"you said it's ok to yell at melenia trump in public!"
"I didn't say that"
"Yes you did!"
'Not really"
"Yes you did!"
'I said Ivanka is being hypocritical when she's supporting an anti-women candidate while championing women"
"So you're saying pro women policy is bad?"
"That's not what I said"
"Yes you did!"
"Not really"
"Stop with your propaganda women!"

A dumb person's idea of a smart person.

He needs to work on his expressions, I know he's going for the "How can you believe something so stupid" look, but to me his look comes across as "I'm too stupid to understand, can you use smaller words".

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
"I said Ivanka is being hypocritical when she's supporting an anti-women candidate while championing women"
"So you're saying pro women policy is bad?" Is this seriously something he says in this video?

Originally posted by Firefly218
aFQFB5YpDZE

That's nice, it doesn't negate the hilarious ownage Tucker dishes out.

All he has to do is essentially invite someone on and they usually defeat themselves just by being allowed to talk.

Originally posted by Surtur
That's nice, it doesn't negate the hilarious ownage Tucker dishes out.

"Ownage". Reporters aren't supposed to deal out "ownage", they're supposed to report what's happening and get the truth.
Originally posted by Surtur
All he has to do is essentially invite someone on and they usually defeat themselves just by being allowed to talk.
Constantly speaking over someone isn't the same as "letting them talk."

Originally posted by Firefly218
LOL Tucker is a hack

9Th5KwBo8_A

This video was infuriating to watch. She was such an insufferable piece of shit. Being absurdly emotional and combative over every little detail. And she tried to wiggle out of the idea that she said some stupid shit in her twitter, backpeddling, that she didn't mean that Ivanka should have been able to be yelled at on the plane. That was very dishonest. Tucker tried to push that topic to call her out on how horrible of a person she is but Tucker got so far up his own ass trying to do his "Tucker" game, he didn't press it.

She's clearly a vile person. A true piece of shit. She's the type that would probably murder an ex-boyfriend who broke up with her because she's intolerable to be around (she's the type that she is the one who has to do the break-up). And then she would figure out how to, in some way, portray herself as the "real victim." She also very clearly objectified and may have even been skirting the edge on racism against Ivanka with her comments about smelling nice and vanilla bullshit.

She f*cked up. She posted some stupid shit about Ivanka. Backpeddled, and tried to play word games to get out of the obviously stupid shit she said. Tucker just didn't deliver in that exchange. And he talked over her so many times.

They are both assholes. It was an annoying video to watch.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This video was infuriating to watch. She was such an insufferable piece of shit. Being absurdly emotional and combative over every little detail. And she tried to wiggle out of the idea that she said some stupid shit in her twitter, backpeddling, that she didn't mean that Ivanka should have been able to be yelled at on the plane. That was very dishonest. Tucker tried to push that topic to call her out on how horrible of a person she is but Tucker got so far up his own ass trying to do his "Tucker" game, he didn't press it.

She's clearly a vile person. A true piece of shit. She's the type that would probably murder an ex-boyfriend who broke up with her because she's intolerable to be around (she's the type that she is the one who has to do the break-up). And then she would figure out how to, in some way, portray herself as the "real victim." She also very clearly objectified and may have even been skirting the edge on racism against Ivanka with her comments about smelling nice and vanilla bullshit.

She f*cked up. She posted some stupid shit about Ivanka. Backpeddled, and tried to play word games to get out of the obviously stupid shit she said. Tucker just didn't deliver in that exchange. And he talked over her so many times.

They are both assholes. It was an annoying video to watch.

Lmao! Yeah, just look at the look on her face, especially at the end of the interview when she is clearly pissed and Tucker cuts her off and ends the interview.

Tucker owns this guy on gun control:

6QK7S8XLNr0

The guy writes for mediaite and after this he wrote a whiny article about Tucker lol. Which you know was just because of how badly he was embarrassed by Tucker on tv.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He does lay the smack on some nubs, for sure.


But...very rarely has he gotten a very intelligent, well-reasoned person on his show. He does that on purpose. Why would he want someone that could punch back?



However, he's not after the well-reasoned and intelligent people. He probably agrees with many of them. He's after the idiots and morons whose voices are too loud.




His personality...he's such an asshat. The dickbag that wanted to argue with everyone in college and went out of his way to cause problems. Basically, most of his guests are fall guys. And in the rare occasion where one of his fall guys starts to make a decent point he just does his best to maneuver around it. Basically, he's got a talking point that he's trying to get out and if you get in his way he will do everything in his power to see it through.

Indeed, you do see a lot of retards, like people who write for Vogue, etc. But sometimes you do get people like...this mayor from California.

fApGCJVySGM

Holy shit I feel sorry for whatever place she is in charge of. This is why I like Tucker, he will expose this silly bullshit.

ex0pydlCUAw

This guy seems like he's actually saying something reasonable and Tucker keeps the same approach of acting like he's crazy/in error.

People just tend to go full retard with Tucker.

0cdlChRhM0s

Lol@ the self defense for Chicago. Do they teach you how to punch away bullets?

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
ex0pydlCUAw

This guy seems like he's actually saying something reasonable and Tucker keeps the same approach of acting like he's crazy/in error.

So wait, the guy can't even really define fake news and he also seems to care more about fake news than the horrible math scores of where he is.

Can you explain why you feel he is reasonable? No, saying "lets help them spot fake news" doesn't count, because when you get down to it the guy can't define it and he seems to be ignoring far bigger problems in order to virtue signal.

What is more important, education like science and math or...spotting "fake news"?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This video was infuriating to watch. She was such an insufferable piece of shit. Being absurdly emotional and combative over every little detail. And she tried to wiggle out of the idea that she said some stupid shit in her twitter, backpeddling, that she didn't mean that Ivanka should have been able to be yelled at on the plane. That was very dishonest. Tucker tried to push that topic to call her out on how horrible of a person she is but Tucker got so far up his own ass trying to do his "Tucker" game, he didn't press it.

She's clearly a vile person. A true piece of shit. She's the type that would probably murder an ex-boyfriend who broke up with her because she's intolerable to be around (she's the type that she is the one who has to do the break-up). And then she would figure out how to, in some way, portray herself as the "real victim." She also very clearly objectified and may have even been skirting the edge on racism against Ivanka with her comments about smelling nice and vanilla bullshit.

She f*cked up. She posted some stupid shit about Ivanka. Backpeddled, and tried to play word games to get out of the obviously stupid shit she said. Tucker just didn't deliver in that exchange. And he talked over her so many times.

They are both assholes. It was an annoying video to watch. wtf is wrong with you...

He started to tell tucker some of the ways you identify the credibility of the source by researching the domain name etc and Tucker just dismissed him. It seemed like a reasonable skillset to teach kids to me. Bringing up the math scores of black kids in his district was just a red herring meant to distract you. And it seems to have worked.

Tucker owned an unintelligent Vogue writer. Next.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
He started to tell tucker some of the ways you identify the credibility of the source by researching the domain name etc and Tucker just dismissed him. It seemed like a reasonable skillset to teach kids to me. Bringing up the math scores of black kids in his district was just a red herring meant to distract you. And it seems to have worked.

Lol but..what news needs to be looked up? How do you decide when you need to do it? Why wasn't this answered? Why isn't he more concerned about the math scores though?

I ask again: what is more important? Spotting fake news or things like math and science. It's valid to bring up because it shows he is worried more about vague bullshit.

Originally posted by Firefly218
wtf is wrong with you...

Where is the substance to your reply? It's just personal attacks instead of talking on the topic.

Are you upset because I didn't agree with you? You really fell for that lady's "debate" tactics, didn't you? And since someone doesn't agree with you and actually made a few good points about what a piece of shit she is, it kind of pisses you off. So you resort to a personal attack.

Put on your adult pants and don't get butthurt when someone doesn't agree with what you thought was "pretty gewd righteous indignation against a douche who routinely makes libtards look like morons on national television."

Or sign out of KMC and go somewhere else where you can rant and cry in an echo chamber of sycophants who drink the same brand of koolaid you drink.

LOL!

I just can't take California seriously. They made it so intentionally exposing someone to HIV is no longer a felony, but they will also penalize you for using the wrong pronoun.

What a shithole.

It's not something you can give a clean cut answer to in a quick line. That's probably why it's a class.

It would be more valid to bring up the math scores of black students in that guy's district if Tucker wasn't playing devils advocate the whole time but he was. He pretended not to understand the reasonably straightforward logic that the guy introduced to him with regard to how to check how credible the site the news is coming from is. It's almost as if Tucker would rather people believe the fake memes and shit online.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It's not something you can give a clean cut answer to in a quick line. That's probably why it's a class.

It would be more valid to bring up the math scores of black students in that guy's district if Tucker wasn't playing devils advocate the whole time but he was. He pretended not to understand the reasonably straightforward logic that the guy introduced to him with regard to how to check how credible the site the news is coming from is. It's almost as if Tucker would rather people believe the fake memes and shit online.

But you see it's important to know the criteria this class will use when it comes to labeling fake news. If he can't answer that he shouldn't have gone on tv to discuss it.

Do you trust the leftists in California to approach the fake news from a non-bias standpoint? I'd be shocked if you did.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
ex0pydlCUAw

This guy seems like he's actually saying something reasonable and Tucker keeps the same approach of acting like he's crazy/in error.

Yup, this is the kind of relevant and contemporary curricular legislation that we need pushed out. Tucker incorrectly focuses on Math scores when the more important element is reading, reading comprehension, and critical thinking. We need curricula that teaches our children how to do well in this modern and changing world. We don't need archaic and even harmful curricula that does not prepare our children.

Very few people will be working jobs like mine that requires algebra and statistics on a regular basis. And that's shit you should be learning, as it applies to a career, in college, anyway.

I think this assemblyman, Jimmy Gomez, is calm, well-reasoned, and has a great idea. Especailly when he hands Tucker's ass to him by saying, "We should do both" improve math and teach children critical thinking and fact checking on internet news.

This is a great example of Tucker not doing shit actually losing a discussion. Gomez tells him specifics on what children should be looking for and Tucker pretend to not hear it.

What Tucker was hoping for was legislation that is similar to "libtarded thought police." He hoped that it was something he could stir up his viewers over by making them think this was some 1984, legislated, thought-policing that targets children. But when Gomez starts clarifying it and it actually sounds reasonable, Tucker just doubles down on pretending to not hear him.

EBMM4_uYpQg

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yup, this is the kind of relevant and contemporary curricular legislation that we need pushed out. Tucker incorrectly focuses on Math scores when the more important element is reading, reading comprehension, and critical thinking. We need curricula that teaches our children how to do well in this modern and changing world. We don't need archaic and even harmful curricula that does not prepare our children.

Very few people will be working jobs like mine that requires algebra and statistics on a regular basis. And that's shit you should be learning, as it applies to a career, in college, anyway.

I think this assemblyman, Jimmy Gomez, is calm, well-reasoned, and has a great idea. Especailly when he hands Tucker's ass to him by saying, "We should do both" improve math and teach children critical thinking and fact checking on internet news.

This is a great example of Tucker not doing shit actually losing a discussion. Gomez tells him specifics on what children should be looking for and Tucker pretend to not hear it.

What Tucker was hoping for was legislation that is similar to "libtarded thought police." He hoped that it was something he could stir up his viewers over by making them think this was some 1984, legislated, thought-policing that targets children. But when Gomez starts clarifying it and it actually sounds reasonable, Tucker just doubles down on pretending to not hear him.

He says they should do both and it's awesome. But why are they seemingly focused on fake news then? Actions speak louder than words. The guy wasn't unaware of the issues in education, but still chose to focus on "fake news".

It seems the fake news shit comes down to "google this domain name to see if its valid". You need an entire class for that?

Originally posted by Surtur
People just tend to go full retard with Tucker.

0cdlChRhM0s

Lol@ the self defense for Chicago. Do they teach you how to punch away bullets?

This is a classic Tucker verbal beatdown. She's clearly capitalizing on the violence by selling "self-defense" classes. And the examples she provides are from places far away: Portland and DC.

She'd be much more effective at helping these people if they taught proper gun use, accuracy improvement, and put in some situation training (that could include Hand to Hand elements). But using a gun? No way! Guns are so bad!

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is a classic Tucker verbal beatdown. She's clearly capitalizing on the violence by selling "self-defense" classes. And the examples she provides are from places far away: Portland and DC.

She'd be much more effective at helping these people if they taught proper gun use, accuracy improvement, and put in some situation training (that could include Hand to Hand elements). But using a gun? No way! Guns are so bad!

It's even more hilarious in context because it's Chicago and we've had like 500 murders so far. Just yesterday I heard a story of a 64 yr. old woman getting shot in the head. She wasn't the target, but gang bangers are too stupid to even aim properly.

Now she is dead, but the thugs will continue to run free. But hey...those damn cops.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
EBMM4_uYpQg


lol!




Tucker REALLY got his ass handed to him in this exchange. It doesn't need to focus on anything else but voting. Tucker tried to trap them into a redherring discussion and they didn't take the bate. Good on them. They seem well-versed in debate.

And they had proper responses to Tucker's poorly researched arguments, too. "Single issue state." They also covered recidivism and controlling for the specific variable that they wanted changed, too: ex-felons getting to vote.


This is how you tucker our Tucker.

Originally posted by Surtur
He says they should do both and it's awesome. But why are they seemingly focused on fake news then? Actions speak louder than words. The guy wasn't unaware of the issues in education, but still chose to focus on "fake news".

It's a stupid red herring to begin with. He properly addressed that argument. It's a waste of time to talk in circles: I'm not Robtard. Don't circle talk to me.

Originally posted by Surtur
It seems the fake news shit comes down to "google this domain name to see if its valid". You need an entire class for that?

And this is a strawman on your part. If you don't have a good argument to make, don't make any argument. If all you can muster is a strawman, then explore the cognitive dissonance you are probably feeling and change your opinion.

My argument is mostly I do not trust leftists to decide what is or is not fake news.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's even more hilarious in context because it's Chicago and we've had like 500 murders so far. Just yesterday I heard a story of a 64 yr. old woman getting shot in the head. She wasn't the target, but gang bangers are too stupid to even aim properly.

Now she is dead, but the thugs will continue to run free. But hey...those damn cops.


And these murderers, thanks to the very racist efforts in the 60s and 70s and the continued subversive racism, are probably "Democratic voters and supporters" until they lose their rights to vote after they get caught.

DDM is ****ing pissed today.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And these murderers, thanks to the very racist efforts in the 60s and 70s and the continued subversive racism, are probably "Democratic voters and supporters" until they lose their rights to vote after they get caught.

We've been run by democrats for decades. Hell I know one of these pricks and they used to be a family friend. Michael Madigan, he has the biggest house in this neighborhood, it looks hilariously out of place.

Originally posted by Surtur
My argument is mostly I do not trust leftists to decide what is or is not fake news.

I agree with this point of yours. But...I addressed this point as being a relevant avenue, contextually with the video, already in my post. Do you understand that I absolutely loathe circular discussions/debates? They are not discussions and they are not debates. It's just talking in circles. We can just quote our posts back to each other or even write a script to do it. No need to waste time talking the same points over and over.

it sucks going from one of the biggest guys in the gym to an emaciated weakling. someone could forcibly rape me and I couldn't fight back.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree with this point of yours. But...I addressed this point as being a relevant avenue, contextually with the video, already in my post. Do you understand that I absolutely loathe circular discussions/debates? They are not discussions and they are not debates. It's just talking in circles. We can just quote our posts back to each other or even write a script to do it. No need to waste time talking the same points over and over.

I understand what you mean. I guess I'm just tainted by all the wacky shit this state did recently. What do you think about the HIV shit?

hiv stuff is insane dude.

Actually I think it's worth its own topic...

Originally posted by dadudemon

And she tried to wiggle out of the idea that she said some stupid shit in her twitter, backpeddling, that she didn't mean that Ivanka should have been able to be yelled at on the plane. T
WTF?

Bro, not once was the airplane incident mentioned in her tweet, stop strawmanning. Literally all her tweet said was that Ivanka was being hypocritical by supporting women's rights while supporting a candidate who would negatively affect women.

That is an absolutely fair and reasonable opinion to have. If Tucker wanted to ask her questions on why she thought Trump was bad for women, tha's fair game, but to make a baseless assumption on what she was trying to say and then double down instead of admitting he misunderstood what she said is sh!t journalism.

And by the way, completely mischaracterizing and then attacking someone for something they never argued while pulling out irrelevant sh!t to try and undermine their credibility is not a

I know you like indiscriminately saying both sides are bad, but it's utterly dishonest to go on calling someone a piece of shit for something they never even argued.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol!




Tucker REALLY got his ass handed to him in this exchange. It doesn't need to focus on anything else but voting. Tucker tried to trap them into a redherring discussion and they didn't take the bate. Good on them. They seem well-versed in debate.

And they had proper responses to Tucker's poorly researched arguments, too. "Single issue state." They also covered recidivism and controlling for the specific variable that they wanted changed, too: ex-felons getting to vote.


This is how you tucker our Tucker.
What the ****? How the fck does our country have a law that doesn't allow citizens to fcking vote?

Ex-felons aren't allowed to do much of anything. People have a need to feel superior to others, so anyone who has ever done wrong has to carry it with them far after they serve their sentence.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Ex-felons aren't allowed to do much of anything. People have a need to feel superior to others, so anyone who has ever done wrong has to carry it with them far after they serve their sentence. So what's the point of them doing time in prison?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is a classic Tucker verbal beatdown. She's clearly capitalizing on the violence by selling "self-defense" classes. And the examples she provides are from places far away: Portland and DC.

She'd be much more effective at helping these people if they taught proper gun use, accuracy improvement, and put in some situation training (that could include Hand to Hand elements). But using a gun? No way! Guns are so bad!
Isn't it possible she doesn't know how to train people using guns?

How does her teaching people how to defend themselves unarmed hurt people who train others in how to use their guns precisely?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
WTF?

Bro, not once was the airplane incident mentioned in her tweet, stop strawmanning.

I addressed this already in my post, don't pretend like I never addressed this very specific dodge of hers and now yours, just to troll me. Stop wasting my time. I've seen your posts: you're definitely not worth spending any time on.

If you're young (less than 15), your posts/replies may make more sense. If so, please forgive me for talking down to you. If not, holy shit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I addressed this already in my post, don't pretend like I never addressed this very specific dodge of hers and now yours, just to troll me. Stop wasting my time. I've seen your posts: you're definitely not worth spending any time on.

If you're young (less than 15), your posts/replies may make more sense. If so, please forgive me for talking down to you. If not, holy shit.

Dude YOU'RE not worth spending time on. Acting high and mighty, you come off as a petulant child.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Dude YOU'RE not worth spending time on. Acting high and mighty, you come off as a petulant child.

https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg

Originally posted by Flyattractor
https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg How many times have you used this graphic in your KKK group text?

Originally posted by Firefly218
How many times have you used this graphic in your KKK group text?

Ohhhh!! That so Burned ME!


Oh wait no it didn't.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Ohhhh!! That so Burned ME!


Oh wait no it didn't.


Why do you hate black ppl???

Why do you want me to hate black people?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Why do you want me to hate black people? I want peace and love between all living beings in the universe except your b!tchass

But only if they vote the same way as you?

Originally posted by Firefly218
aFQFB5YpDZE
^
This is typically what happens when Tucker tries to debate someone who isn't some green 2nd year college student or rando loud-mouth moron, which is his forte. He gets his shit pushed in by anyone of moderate intelligence or above, figuratively speaking of course

Originally posted by Robtard
^
This is typically what happens when Tucker tries to debate someone who isn't some green 2nd year college student or rando loud-mouth moron, which is his forte. He gets his shit pushed in by anyone of moderate intelligence or above, figuratively speaking of course


It is a Youtube vid and thus it is invalidated to be used in debates. According to Leftist Progressives Rules on Youtube.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't actually have an argument so I'm just going to tell you how sh!t you are so I can satisfy my superiority complex
Fair enough.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Dude YOU'RE not worth spending time on. Acting high and mighty, you come off as a petulant child.

LOL! Was this satire or something? Like if Trump jokingly told someone else they are too orange? Or did you say this with a straight face?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
But only if they vote the same way as you? listen, I don't believe you hate black ppl it's only a joke. I believe you just think black ppl should drink at a different water fountain right? And sit in the back of the bus?

Originally posted by Surtur
LOL! Was this satire or something? Like if Trump jokingly told someone else they are too orange? Or did you say this with a straight face? It's cute how all the conservatives have buddied up and watch each others backs, you're like a stupid family

LOL! Did you just say that with a straight face Firefly? Do..do you not think the other side doesn't do the same? What do you think it is when morons go around "Bingo'ing" leftist posts?

Wait, were you under the impression those were legit things to bingo? Now that is what is cute bro.

Originally posted by Surtur
LOL! Did you just say that with a straight face Firefly? Do..do you not think the other side doesn't do the same? What do you think it is when morons go around "Bingo'ing" leftist posts?

Wait, were you under the impression those were legit things to bingo? Now that is what is cute bro. Liberals tear each other apart way too much. We attack ourselves and let the conservatives win. Conservatives, for better or worse, seem to be very fuking united and unilateral in their action. That unity is cracking a little though under the Trump administration, a few republicans are challenging their OWN ELECTED LEADER!!!

Originally posted by Firefly218
Liberals tear each other apart way too much. We attack ourselves and let the conservatives win. Conservatives, for better or worse, seem to be very fuking united and unilateral in their action. That unity is cracking a little though under the Trump administration, a few republicans are challenging their OWN ELECTED LEADER!!!

Lol but leftists here do not do that. You can see it in the moronic "bingo" posts all around. Whether a good point is made or not is irrelevant, as long as you've talked shit to conservative.

And yes, liberals talk and conservatives do.

And I sure as hell didn't see many liberals challenging Hilary. It was mostly thumbs up to anything she did, or "whataboutisms" with Trump. Which is why it's hilarious to see leftists whine about "whataboutisms" now.

Oh my, Firefly's got Surtur's number now. Poor fella.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh my, Firefly's got Surtur's number now. Poor fella.

Firefly, perfect example right here lol. It's almost like I couldn't have given a better example if I hacked Rob's account and pretended to be him.

That's just good timing Rob, top notch. Please tell me you'll be posting in the Harvey Weinstein thread next.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol but leftists here do not do that. You can see it in the moronic "bingo" posts all around. Whether a good point is made or not is irrelevant, as long as you've talked shit to conservative.

And yes, liberals talk and conservatives do.

And I sure as hell didn't see many liberals challenging Hilary. It was mostly thumbs up to anything she did, or "whataboutisms" with Trump. Which is why it's hilarious to see leftists whine about "whataboutisms" now. Idk about that. The Bernie Bros had pretty extreme animosity towards Hillary.

Originally posted by Surtur
Firefly, perfect example right here lol. It's almost like I couldn't have given a better example if I hacked Rob's account and pretended to be him.

That's just good timing Rob, top notch. Please tell me you'll be posting in the Harvey Weinstein thread next.

^ OH my...

Originally posted by Firefly218
Idk about that. The Bernie Bros had pretty extreme animosity towards Hillary.

And most of the morons supported her though. You know this lol. The Bernie Bros are awesome as far as Hilary is concerned though, a perfect scapegoat to toss in there along with Russia and Comey and the man in the moon.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ OH my...

Rob, who is this supposed to fool? I'm just confused. There are a very select group of posters that post here. They all know how you actually are lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob, who is this supposed to fool? I'm just confused. There are a very select group of posters that post here. They all know how you actually are lol.

^

Firefly, whatever you're doing, keep it up. Wow.

Originally posted by Robtard
^

Firefly, whatever you're doing, keep it up. Wow.

Lol Rob, at this point you aren't to be taken seriously. You literally have no comeback to anything about your behavior anymore lol. It's a "bingo" or a "wow".

The question remains if others will be sad enough to buy into it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol Rob, at this point you aren't to be taken seriously. You literally have no comeback to anything about your behavior anymore lol. It's a "bingo" or a "wow".

The question remains if others will be sad enough to buy into it.

^ See?

Originally posted by Robtard
^ See?

^^Indeed, see? It's all this guy can do. Too funny.

Originally posted by Surtur
^^Indeed, see? It's all this guy can do. Too funny. You took Robtard's joke like a gift that proved your point lol

Originally posted by Firefly218
You took Robtard's joke like a gift that proved your point lol

Ah now it's a joke, I see. It's hard to tell with Rob given the dumb shit he's said.

Originally posted by Firefly218
You took Robtard's joke like a gift that proved your point lol

Yup, he did. Lolz, times like this is when I legit feel for him.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yup, he did. Lolz, times like this is when I legit feel for him.

Lol Rob, you spew so much bullshit it's not easy to know when you're spewing a joke.

Spew less bullshit, it will be easier then to identify your jokes.

Oh and btw, continue to build that little narrative you're crafting, it's adorable.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol Rob, you spew so much bullshit it's not easy to know when you're spewing a joke.

Spew less bullshit, it will be easier then to identify your jokes.

Oh and btw, continue to build that little narrative you're crafting, it's adorable.

^ Look @ this

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Look @ this

Rob, honest question: do you think anyone with intelligence buys this stuff? I can't see how they could.

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob, honest question: do you think anyone with intelligence buys this stuff? I can't see how they could.

^ More

Indeed Rob, indeed. I see it's best to just let you do your thing.

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed Rob, indeed. I see it's best to just let you do your thing.


^ Another

Indeed Rob, you just keep that up

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed Rob, you just keep that up

^ Look

I know man, I know. You just keep on posting.

Originally posted by Surtur
I know man, I know. You just keep on posting.

^ Witness

Indeed, indeed. I love it when Tucker triggers folk.

Yeah, he might have imbeciles on his show, but they are imbeciles that need to be exposed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I addressed this already in my post You didn't actually, not in any way that was particularly convincing. There was no evidence supporting your assertion in your post, nor any real reasoning as to why your assertion was more correct than Rocky's. I couldn't give a single shit about what Ivanka Trump is doing, but based on my brief looking up of this incident, no I can't find anything in particular that supports your assertion, nor will I be doing any more research to look up something I don't particularly care about.

Just know that this:

"And she tried to wiggle out of the idea that she said some stupid shit in her twitter, backpeddling, that she didn't mean that Ivanka should have been able to be yelled at on the plane. That was very dishonest. "

Is just you giving your unsubstantiated opinion.

Furthermore, as far as your response to Rocky goes:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Where is the substance to your reply? It's just personal attacks instead of talking on the topic.

Kek.

I get the impression you're trolling right now dadudemon, which is fine, but you could be doing so much better. I'd rate your efforts a 4/10, if I'm being generous.

^^LOL!!! Pot, kettle, black, all that shit. Just awesome, gave me a nice laugh. Thanks

Originally posted by Surtur
^^LOL!!! Pot, kettle, black, all that shit. Just awesome, gave me a nice laugh. Thanks
Why don't you respond to actual arguments instead of trying to undermine other users?

If you disagree with what nemebro is saying, then explain why, don't just avoid the conversation by shifting this into some referendum on nemebro when that isn't what is being discussed.

He's desperate for an eBuddy; this why. I'd not pay him serious attention right now.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Why don't you respond to actual arguments instead of trying to undermine other users? Because he's not intelligent enough to.

He's extremely butthurt about me in particular because I backed him into a corner and got him to reluctantly admit that I was right concerning our discussions about police brutality on black people (while prolapsing his anus). He's been sore towards me ever sense, to the extent that he will go into other threads and ask in a really whiny way why I'm not insulting someone else I happen to be posting to. He's a pathetic loser whose physical (he's a broke back ***** who is physically incapable of working), intellectual (evidence is apparent), and sexual (an admitted cuck) inadequacy spurs him to impotently rage and shitfling on the internet in an attempt to feel better about himself.

He will now make another comment about how I have no self-awareness and am the pot calling the kettle black, or he would, if I didn't anticipate him doing so. That's a big part of his posting style. He seeks to find hypocrisy in others and claim they have no self-awareness while not actually debating the points on the table, though I haven't brought many points at the moment. Just brought up what a massive phaggot he is.

3 on 1 Gang Bang in the Forum!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
3 on 1 Gang Bang in the Forum! Don't transcribe your being raped fantasies plz

Originally posted by NemeBro
You didn't actually, not in any way that was particularly convincing. There was no evidence supporting your assertion in your post, nor any real reasoning as to why your assertion was more correct than Rocky's. I couldn't give a single shit about what Ivanka Trump is doing, but based on my brief looking up of this incident, no I can't find anything in particular that supports your assertion, nor will I be doing any more research to look up something I don't particularly care about.

Just know that this:

"And she tried to wiggle out of the idea that she said some stupid shit in her twitter, backpeddling, that she didn't mean that Ivanka should have been able to be yelled at on the plane. That was very dishonest. "

Is just you giving your unsubstantiated opinion.

It was during the tweet storm related to the plane incident. It's not my fault that you and that other poster have such poor memories that you don't remember the events surround that situation.

I'll be nicer to you and explain context.

She just so happened to comment about how Ivanka deserves to be yelled out, during the tweet storm, surrounding the incident.

"No, I wasn't tweeting about the incident where she was yelled at on the plane. It is unrelated." Yeah, nice timing and your tweet just so happened to be specific enough that it clearly applies to this incident.

The portion you quoted of my post clearly indicates this. If she didn't mean the plane, then she would have specified that in her tweet.

Why do you think she even got called onto the show? It's quite obvious she backpedaled.


Now pay attention, lad:

Incident occurs December 22nd when Ivanka is traveling with her children on a plane:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-flight/index.html

Twitter storm ensues shortly after that. People, conservatives, are crying that she should be left alone on the plane with her children. Holiday traveling. etc. Twitter storm starts.

Lauran Duca wants attention and capitalizes on the twitter storm (at the time, hash tags abound such as #ImWithHer and #Trump form the conservative camp...yes, people were "I'm with her", "her" being Ivanka) by posting her topical tweet on the 23rd:

https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/812321456222834688?lang=en

She absolutely loved getting on national television, by the way. She tweeted about it very shortly after Fox News discovered that a "journalist" said Ivanka should not be let off the hook because Ivanka is poised to be powerful. This is what she wanted.

And when confronted about her obviously sexist (and perhaps racist) and rather stupid tweet about wanting Ivanka to be harassed on the plane, she backpedaled and said no one should be harassed on the plane. Anyone who is going to pretend Lauren Duca did not capitalize on the Ivanka plane issue and will act like her tweet was "in general, not specific to the plane issue" is definitely being dishonest. But, hey, someone who would support Lauren's dishonest backpedaling on Tucker's show is clearly a dishonest person, themselves. It's very obvious what she was talking about. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. But almost a year later, yes, I'm sure people forgot the context of the situation.




Originally posted by NemeBro
Kek.

I get the impression you're trolling right now dadudemon, which is fine, but you could be doing so much better. I'd rate your efforts a 4/10, if I'm being generous.

Since it wasn't trolling, and you gave it a troll rating, I give your intelligence a 2/10, if I'm being kind.

No, he's just an idiot that doesn't deserve my time. Consider yourself lucky I responded to you.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
3 on 1 Gang Bang in the Forum!

No, it's just a few gnats buzzing around a turd (me). Surtur is the adorable caterpillar walking past the turd, yelling at the gnats to go away.

You'll be a butterfly one day, Surtur. A beautiful rainbow colored one.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Because he's not intelligent enough to.

He's extremely butthurt about me in particular because I backed him into a corner and got him to reluctantly admit that I was right concerning our discussions about police brutality on black people (while prolapsing his anus). He's been sore towards me ever sense, to the extent that he will go into other threads and ask in a really whiny way why I'm not insulting someone else I happen to be posting to. He's a pathetic loser whose physical (he's a broke back ***** who is physically incapable of working), intellectual (evidence is apparent), and sexual (an admitted cuck) inadequacy spurs him to impotently rage and shitfling on the internet in an attempt to feel better about himself.

He will now make another comment about how I have no self-awareness and am the pot calling the kettle black, or he would, if I didn't anticipate him doing so. That's a big part of his posting style. He seeks to find hypocrisy in others and claim they have no self-awareness while not actually debating the points on the table, though I haven't brought many points at the moment. Just brought up what a massive phaggot he is.

LOL! Do you truly believe the nonsense you type? Just curious, like...you legit believe it?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Why don't you respond to actual arguments instead of trying to undermine other users?

If you disagree with what nemebro is saying, then explain why, don't just avoid the conversation by shifting this into some referendum on nemebro when that isn't what is being discussed.

DDM was handling him just fine, he didn't need me one bit to make Nemebro look like a moron. I just thought it was HILARIOUS what he said. And yes, it lacks self awareness. You see he thinks he is clever because he feels if he points out I'll say that it somehow negates that or makes it untrue. It's adorable if he thinks it works.

Just look at the shit he types, he truly convinces himself he has "owned" people in the past and that is why they laugh at him lol. That in itself is priceless. I look forward to another post from him. it will either be a long post full of pseudo-intellectual garbage with him insisting he totes destroyed me or a short post calling me a "phaggot". Or perhaps a medium sized post with a combo of both.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Don't transcribe your being raped fantasies plz

I will when you stop acting like a Forum Harvey Weinstien on people you disagree with.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The portion you quoted of my post clearly indicates this. If she didn't mean the plane, then she would have specified that in her tweet.

Uh, why? Nothing in her tweet alludes to the plane, in fact, she specifically makes something completely separate from the airplane incident the focus of her tweet. As people reading her tweets can presumably read, they should be able to get what she's saying from the tweet.Originally posted by dadudemon
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why do you think she even got called onto the show?
Because Tucker wanted ratings, and what better way than to mischaracterize a liberal as a nutjob by accusing her of saying something she never said.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Incident occurs December 22nd when Ivanka is traveling with her children on a plane:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-flight/index.html

Twitter storm ensues shortly after that. People, conservatives, are crying that she should be left alone on the plane with her children. Holiday traveling. etc. Twitter storm starts.

Lauran Duca wants attention and capitalizes on the twitter storm (at the time, hash tags abound such as #ImWithHer and #Trump form the conservative camp...yes, people were "I'm with her", "her" being Ivanka) by posting her topical tweet on the 23rd:

https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/812321456222834688?lang=en

None of the hashtags referred to the plane incident, the context you're arguing for here doesn't exist.

Additionally, it's nonsensical to think that posting a tweet a day after a story in a 24 hour news cycle automatically makes that previous story the focus of your tweet when the story isn't mentioned or alluded to anywhere in what you tweet. The only valid source of evidence for your claim here is the tweet itself and what the tweet says. Up until this point, none of this has been remotely relevant to what you're trying to prove. If you want to justify that she argued something she's explicitly said she didn't argue, it's up to you to prove that based on what she tweeted, nothing else.

Oh?
Let's look at the actual tweet:

^^^^Nowhere is the plane incident alluded to. Nowhere does she support Ivanka being harassed. Nowhere does she say anything about people "yelling" at her.

You've got no basis to claim that she was talking about the plane incident much less what she was saying about the plane incident. The only comment she ever makes on the plane incident is on Tucker's show which was:
"no she shouldn't have been harassed".

Based on what she has said, she is against harassing people on a plane, which means Tucker was mischaracterizing her argument to make her appear stupid and you just endorsed that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
She absolutely loved getting on national television, by the way. She tweeted about it very shortly after Fox News discovered that a "journalist" said Ivanka should not be let off the hook because Ivanka is poised to be powerful. This is what she wanted.

Yea, she did, because calling out Tucker on an idiotic witch hunt he embarked on likely increased her popularity among those capable of reading.

However, that doesn't remotely help you prove:


Enjoy:


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2296746757/n37nkkimyns6wr51ud16_400x400.jpeg

^ Boom #Gottem

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
lots of denial that she aimed her tweet specifically regarding the incident and denial about Lauren backpedaling


Originally posted by dadudemon

She just so happened to comment about how Ivanka deserves to be yelled out, during the tweet storm, surrounding the incident.

"No, I wasn't tweeting about the incident where she was yelled at on the plane. It is unrelated." Yeah, nice timing and your tweet just so happened to be specific enough that it clearly applies to this incident.

The portion you quoted of my post clearly indicates this. If she didn't mean the plane, then she would have specified that in her tweet.

Why do you think she even got called onto the show? It's quite obvious she backpedaled.



And when confronted about her obviously sexist (and perhaps racist) and rather stupid tweet about wanting Ivanka to be harassed on the plane, she backpedaled and said no one should be harassed on the plane. Anyone who is going to pretend Lauren Duca did not capitalize on the Ivanka plane issue and will act like her tweet was "in general, not specific to the plane issue" is definitely being dishonest. But, hey, someone who would support Lauren's dishonest backpedaling on Tucker's show is clearly a dishonest person, themselves. It's very obvious what she was talking about. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Originally posted by Firefly218
^ Boom #Gottem

He most certainly did not. Not even close. I read 5 similar arguments denying the same thing in his post. Only an idiot or a troll would believe Lauren didn't aim her tweet at the plane incident.

Originally posted by dadudemon
dodging the conversation
Hey, I can do it too!

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Hey, I can do it too!

Originally posted by dadudemon

She just so happened to comment about how Ivanka deserves to be yelled out, during the tweet storm, surrounding the incident.

"No, I wasn't tweeting about the incident where she was yelled at on the plane. It is unrelated." Yeah, nice timing and your tweet just so happened to be specific enough that it clearly applies to this incident.

The portion you quoted of my post clearly indicates this. If she didn't mean the plane, then she would have specified that in her tweet.

Why do you think she even got called onto the show? It's quite obvious she backpedaled.



And when confronted about her obviously sexist (and perhaps racist) and rather stupid tweet about wanting Ivanka to be harassed on the plane, she backpedaled and said no one should be harassed on the plane. Anyone who is going to pretend Lauren Duca did not capitalize on the Ivanka plane issue and will act like her tweet was "in general, not specific to the plane issue" is definitely being dishonest. But, hey, someone who would support Lauren's dishonest backpedaling on Tucker's show is clearly a dishonest person, themselves. It's very obvious what she was talking about. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Okay, I'll bite: you're a troll.


"...let her off the hook..." is specifically regarding people crying that she shouldn't be harassed on the plane. She said that to directly cause trouble and conflict with the conservatives and conservatards upset over her being harassed with her children, during holiday travels, on the plane. She did it on purpose. She is a shit stirrer.

Deny it all you want, that's exactly what she meant. And when Tucker called her onto the show to call her out for being a despicable person, she backpedaled.

You believe her lies because you're a troll or an idiot. I don't believe her lies because I'm neither.


Boom. owned. #takeyourasstomommy #hurdurhastags


Edit - In her interview, you can see the moment she fully commits to the backpedal:

"...But where do those protections end..."

"protections" referring to the social graces of not harassing a mother on a plane

And she seemed quite ready to argue "my tweet didn't talk about that at all, actually" when Tucker brought it up,again. She fully prepared to make the counter-argument and deny her atrocious comments.

She was still on the fence in her Tucker "interview" in the beginning because she's still questioning the "protections" a plane riding mother should have from harassment in the beginning of the interview.

She had no fully committed to her crafted backpedal until Tucker pressed her further on what a piece of shit she is. And you can see the moment she goes from being calm and collected to being a huge asswipe: when Tucker calls her out on her sexist and borderline racist comments about Ivanka smelling good. If a man said that about a coworker, at work, he'd be written up or terminated for sexual harassment. Tucker was right to call her out on that bullshit.

^ Nuh uh I'm not even gonna slog through that huge block of text.

I follow her on twitter, that tweet in context was part of a series of tweets addressing the liberals who saw Ivanka as a balancing force. Lauren was warning that Ivanka should not be trusted or looked up to

Originally posted by Firefly218
^ Nuh uh I'm not even gonna slog through that huge block of text.

I follow her on twitter, that tweet in context was part of a series of tweets addressing the liberals who saw Ivanka as a balancing force. Lauren was warning that Ivanka should not be trusted or looked up to

I looked through her tweets: you're lying. She didn't menton Ivanka for weeks

https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from%3Alaurenduca%20since%3A2016-12-23%20until%3A2016-12-25&src=typd&lang=en

And I searched through 2 weeks prior to the 'incident' tweet...holy hell, she's a horrifically shallow and narcissitic person. But she mentioned Ivanka one other time. And we already saw that tweet. It was about Ivanka "having it all."



So you're full of shit.


Why u lyin', bro?

hard to "misinterpret' stuff when you can't even be bothered to read a whole post.

Can someone link me to liberal twitter? Thanks in advance!

Originally posted by Surtur
Can someone link me to liberal twitter? Thanks in advance!



This actually made me laugh out loud. This is the kind of snark you'd expect for your elderly Italian grandmother during Thanksgiving.

Originally posted by Surtur
Can someone link me to liberal twitter? Thanks in advance! You should see black twitter

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/

One of the more humorous subreddits imo.