Tucker: Why isn't Dr. Fauci investigated for his role in COVID pandemic?

[bodecea]

Tucker is simply a money whore saying what sells to the retards who populate the right. I don’t blame him. If retards wanted to give me money for saying stupid shit I might be tempted.

Instead of saying stupid shit for free?


You left yourself wide open.........

I get paid for this. I wouldn’t be here if Soros wasn’t making me.

That's plausible.

Of course you believe so.

 

[Slade3200]

Tucker is simply a money whore saying what sells to the retards who populate the right. I don’t blame him. If retards wanted to give me money for saying stupid shit I might be tempted.

Instead of saying stupid shit for free?


You left yourself wide open.........

I get paid for this. I wouldn’t be here if Soros wasn’t making me.

Speaking of... did you get your bonus check yet? Mine was like three times more than I expected, thinking about upgrading my Tesla to a new model. Thanks Georgie!

 

[bodecea]

For the record, I do think that we should take a really good look at this. I think that an investigation is warranted.

Is Cyber Ninjas available?

 

[bodecea]

And the rubes nod along...

if you have facts that disagree with Tucker put them out there otherwise Shut the **** up...

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

"Facts"?

 

[citygator]

To be fair.....no reasonable person takes what Tucker says seriously

Legally you’re not allowed to take Tucker seriously.

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Tucker Carlson has a long history of making racist and controversial statements as a primetime host on Fox News.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[jbrownson0831]

To be fair.....no reasonable person takes what Tucker says seriously

Legally you’re not allowed to take Tucker seriously.

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Tucker Carlson has a long history of making racist and controversial statements as a primetime host on Fox News.

www.businessinsider.com

Why because the Reich brownshirts forbid it? Sieg Heil!

 

[citygator]

Why because the Reich brownshirts forbid it? Sieg Heil!

No. His employer legally had it stipulated that one cannot take Tucker seriously. It’s legally defined as entertainment.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Why because the Reich brownshirts forbid it? Sieg Heil!

No. His employer legally had it stipulated that one cannot take Tucker seriously. It’s legally defined as entertainment.

His entertainment happens to be true and factual....only wackos wouldn't believe it which is why we are having this conversation right?

 

[odanny]

Why isn't this stupid shit in the Conspiracy Theories forum?

Because Fauci paid Wuhan to develop a bioweapon that specifically targets a protein unique to the human respiratory system

Of course he did.

 

[Oddball]

And the rubes nod along...

if you have facts that disagree with Tucker put them out there otherwise Shut the **** up...

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

"Facts"?

NPR?

 

[Slade3200]

Why because the Reich brownshirts forbid it? Sieg Heil!

No. His employer legally had it stipulated that one cannot take Tucker seriously. It’s legally defined as entertainment.

His entertainment happens to be true and factual....only wackos wouldn't believe it which is why we are having this conversation right?

Not according to his attorney who said, in court, that his program was not meant to be taken seriously

 

[Slade3200]

And the rubes nod along...

if you have facts that disagree with Tucker put them out there otherwise Shut the **** up...

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

"Facts"?

NPR?

What does NPR have to do with anything?! The article had quotes and links from the courtroom backing up the claim that Tucker is full of shit. I don’t care if it came from banana hammock.com... You attacking the source just shows that you have no counter argument. That’s weaksauce.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

 

[Mac1958]

And the rubes nod along...

if you have facts that disagree with Tucker put them out there otherwise Shut the **** up...

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

"Facts"?

NPR?

What does NPR have to do with anything?! The article had quotes and links from the courtroom backing up the claim that Tucker is full of shit. I don’t care if it came from banana hammock.com... You attacking the source just shows that you have no counter argument. That’s weaksauce.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

In their universe, "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary" are The Truth, if provided by the right person.

 

[Oddball]

And the rubes nod along...

if you have facts that disagree with Tucker put them out there otherwise Shut the **** up...

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

"Facts"?

NPR?

What does NPR have to do with anything?! The article had quotes and links from the courtroom backing up the claim that Tucker is full of shit. I don’t care if it came from banana hammock.com... You attacking the source just shows that you have no counter argument. That’s weaksauce.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

Sauce for the goose, Gomer Pyle.....How about you barking moonbats take your own advice, and disprove what Tucker said rather than attacking him personally, hmmmmmm?

As for the show itself, he has a pretty well researched opinion program, that doesn't throw around accusations like those being directed at Fauci lightly....If what he said is wrong then sue his ass for defamation.

 

[Slade3200]

And the rubes nod along...

if you have facts that disagree with Tucker put them out there otherwise Shut the **** up...

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

"Facts"?

NPR?

What does NPR have to do with anything?! The article had quotes and links from the courtroom backing up the claim that Tucker is full of shit. I don’t care if it came from banana hammock.com... You attacking the source just shows that you have no counter argument. That’s weaksauce.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

Sauce for the goose, Gomer Pyle.....How about you barking moonbats take your own advice, and disprove what Tucker said rather than attacking him personally, hmmmmmm?

As for the show itself, he has a pretty well researched opinion program, that doesn't throw around accusations like those being directed at Fauci lightly....If what he said is wrong then sue his ass for defamation.

Haha, a pretty well researched opinion program! That’s awesome. So they research events and stories and then hyperbolize and distort the shit out of them for ratings. Keep enough nuggets of truth to hook the tards and make them think they are gaining real insight. It’s amazing that anybody would fall for that crap

 

[Mustang]

Tucker is simply a money whore saying what sells to the retards who populate the right. I don’t blame him. If retards wanted to give me money for saying stupid shit I might be tempted.

I blame him. I also blame Fox News, and by extension, Rupert Murdoch. Perhaps if the FCC sent them an official letter which warned them that they are at risk of losing their license to broadcast due to their penchant for willfully airing verifiably false information as if it was real news, they might have an epiphany and suddenly see the light when they realize that their cash cow might just dry up if they don't change their ways.

 

[Oddball]

And the rubes nod along...

if you have facts that disagree with Tucker put them out there otherwise Shut the **** up...

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

"Facts"?

NPR?

What does NPR have to do with anything?! The article had quotes and links from the courtroom backing up the claim that Tucker is full of shit. I don’t care if it came from banana hammock.com... You attacking the source just shows that you have no counter argument. That’s weaksauce.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

Sauce for the goose, Gomer Pyle.....How about you barking moonbats take your own advice, and disprove what Tucker said rather than attacking him personally, hmmmmmm?

As for the show itself, he has a pretty well researched opinion program, that doesn't throw around accusations like those being directed at Fauci lightly....If what he said is wrong then sue his ass for defamation.

Haha, a pretty well researched opinion program! That’s awesome. So they research events and stories and then hyperbolize and distort the shit out of them for ratings. Keep enough nuggets of truth to hook the tards and make them think they are gaining real insight. It’s amazing that anybody would fall for that crap

There you go attacking Tucker again, instead of disproving what he said.

Get the plank out of your own eye first, jackass.

 

[Desperado]

Tucker is simply a money whore saying what sells to the retards who populate the right. I don’t blame him. If retards wanted to give me money for saying stupid shit I might be tempted.

I blame him. I also blame Fox News, and by extension, Rupert Murdoch. Perhaps if the FCC sent them an official letter which warned them that they are at risk of losing their license to broadcast due to their penchant for willfully airing verifiably false information as if it was real news, they might have an epiphany and suddenly see the light when they realize that their cash cow might just dry up if they don't change their ways.

so what is the "airing verifiably false information"
You brought it up now support your claim!

 

[Slade3200]

And the rubes nod along...

if you have facts that disagree with Tucker put them out there otherwise Shut the **** up...

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

"Facts"?

NPR?

What does NPR have to do with anything?! The article had quotes and links from the courtroom backing up the claim that Tucker is full of shit. I don’t care if it came from banana hammock.com... You attacking the source just shows that you have no counter argument. That’s weaksauce.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

Sauce for the goose, Gomer Pyle.....How about you barking moonbats take your own advice, and disprove what Tucker said rather than attacking him personally, hmmmmmm?

As for the show itself, he has a pretty well researched opinion program, that doesn't throw around accusations like those being directed at Fauci lightly....If what he said is wrong then sue his ass for defamation.

Haha, a pretty well researched opinion program! That’s awesome. So they research events and stories and then hyperbolize and distort the shit out of them for ratings. Keep enough nuggets of truth to hook the tards and make them think they are gaining real insight. It’s amazing that anybody would fall for that crap

There you go attacking Tucker again, instead of disproving what he said.

Get the plank out of your own eye first, jackass.

We aren’t talking about specifics right now we are talking about how Tuckers lawyers defined his show in court. I quoted a judges comments who quite Literally said that Tucker exaggerates and does not present actual facts

 

[Mustang]

Tucker is simply a money whore saying what sells to the retards who populate the right. I don’t blame him. If retards wanted to give me money for saying stupid shit I might be tempted.

I blame him. I also blame Fox News, and by extension, Rupert Murdoch. Perhaps if the FCC sent them an official letter which warned them that they are at risk of losing their license to broadcast due to their penchant for willfully airing verifiably false information as if it was real news, they might have an epiphany and suddenly see the light when they realize that their cash cow might just dry up if they don't change their ways.

so what is the "airing verifiably false information"
You brought it up now support your claim!

Any educated person knows that proving a negative is a fool's errand. I suppose Rupert Murdoch knows that. So, he doesn't really care about media critics who get on TV to air their grievances. Hell, he probably views it as free advertising. But let the FCC get involved, and he'd change his tune in short order once the cease and desist order was issued by a court and the fines started rolling in and kept piling up.