MSM MELTDOWN OVER TUCKER CARLSON

koobookie wrote: Please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say that FoxNews was credible.

It is hilariously funny that Fox does not trust Carlson, who was their employee forever. I'm not sure why you don't see the irony, but then I guess you're just intentionally playing dumb to try to provoke me. Nice try.

Tucker Carlson used to work for CNN. I wonder if he would go back if they asked nicely?

BTW, many more people are watching him since he left Fox. Maybe because they can watch his interviews and features anytime they want.

homeagain wrote: Can't recognize a "hatch job" when it hits u?...Carlson is "clipped" (mob talk for murder, metaphorically,of course)

Translation and some context?

Rick wrote:

homeagain wrote: Can't recognize a "hatch job" when it hits u?...Carlson is "clipped" (mob talk for murder, metaphorically,of course)

Translation and some context?

[/b]

www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/10/tucker-c...y-exit-from-fox-news


“Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously,” Carlson wrote. “It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: This isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be.”

The moral of his story was about the dangers of dehumanizing political opponents, but the words “it’s not how white men fight” are what startled some Fox board members. It similarly disturbed Dominion executives who read it during the discovery process. The text indicated a view of racial superiority that contradicted Carlson’s frequent (and much doubted) claims of color blindness—and set up an excruciating cross-examination scenario in court.

This much is known for sure: The Fox board retained Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, a notoriously powerful white-shoe law firm, to investigate Carlson and any other malign messages that might exist. “There were major concerns about liability,” an executive told me. Within a week, Carlson was out.

He was whacked because he thought he was BMOC (BIG MAN ON CAMPUS) and the boss was like,
ah I don't think so...he's a liability and is dispensable. Does that explain the bolded???

See, that wasn't so hard. I don't agree with you, but at least I have a better idea of what you're talking about.

As for Tucker being a liability and dispensable, I think FOX's bottom line would disagree. Tucker doesn't need FOX or anyone else... he's doing just fine and probably has a bigger audience than any other talking head on TV.

So-o-o, I now see what the issue is....My type of humor (sarcastic) and cryptic is not understood. Perhaps it is because I see things from a metaphysical perspective....MACRO and reading between the lines.

OH and just one other thing...when the ego becomes enormous and believes it is omnipotent,THAT is a sign of an unexpected event that will bring down a hammer and pound the shit out of u. JMO...it's called life lesson 101.

homeagain wrote: So-o-o, I now see what the issue is.....

HA, I think another part of the problem is your prolificacy. You reference posts and threads you made it the past and I have nether the time or interest to track them down nor the memory to remember them if I did.

THAT is not my problem...when a member disappears for an extended period of time and then wants to re enter the arena,they will find much has been covered while they were not present. IF u have a current example,I would be more than happy to refresh the topic.

www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/tucker-...7b05a&cndid=68061906

he Kremlin translated “dialogues” as “my long speeches.”) The translator or translators generally cleaned up Putin’s prose, smoothing out passages that, in Russian, made no sense. For example, responding to Carlson’s question about a possible invasion of Poland, Putin said, in Russian, “Because we don’t have any interests in Poland nor in Lithuania—nowhere. What do we need it for? We just don’t have any interests. Only threats.” The translator rendered it as, “Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don’t have any interest. It’s just threat mongering.”

In another exchange, the translator took liberties to make Carlson appear more dignified. When Carlson asked Putin about his obsession with fighting Nazism eighty years after Hitler’s death, the President said, in Russian, “Your question seems subtle but is very disgusting.” In English, though, Putin appeared to be praising Carlson’s question as “subtle” while Carlson himself, according to the transcript, called the question “quite pesky”—the words were actually spoken by Putin’s translator. However obscure the subject of Putin’s discursive exercise was, the genre probably looked recognizable to Americans. This was a conversation between an older man who has read a history book and fancies himself an expert and his eager nephew, who is trying to feign knowledge in a subject he failed in college. Except one of these guys reaches millions of viewers and the other has nuclear weapons.

S-O-O. we have a multi faceted review ....at least 5 view points (the translator being the most interesting)
the above bolded is a factor I did not consider. WARNING....LONG READ

homeagain wrote: THAT is not my problem...when a member disappears for an extended period of time and then wants to re enter the arena,they will find much has been covered while they were not present. IF u have a current example,I would be more than happy to refresh the topic.

he makes a good point and I’m here all the time. If you want to remind us of something you once said, YOU should find YOUR post or just tell us again. I don’t remember what I had for dinner last night, so I certainly won’t be able to remember what you said last month, especially since I often struggle to understand your posts in real time.