It shouldn't have been titled 'what to know', it should have been titled 'What to think about the Tucker Carlson footage'. Just in case it raised any suspicion in anyone's mind.
That alone should disqualify my point of view.In your right-wing opinion.
That alone should disqualify my point of view.
It shouldn't have been titled 'what to know', it should have been titled 'What to think about the Tucker Carlson footage'. Just in case it raised any suspicion in anyone's mind.
This is just an excuse for you to start another thread on the same topic.
It shouldn't have been titled 'what to know', it should have been titled 'What to think about the Tucker Carlson footage'. Just in case it raised any suspicion in anyone's mind.
That alone should disqualify my point of view.
Didn't you already start a thread about this? What's the purpose of this one?
This is just an excuse for you to start another thread on the same topic.
This is you yesterday.
To Liberals About Jan 6th
Whatever you do don't watch Tucker Carlson tonight or tomorrow night. If you do it may cause you to question your sacred beliefs about the events of Jan 6th. Or maybe not.debatepolitics.com
Believing anything Carlson says disqualifies you from the pool of sane humans. His employer says that he is not meant to be believed, he himself admits to deliberately lying to his viewers to protect the companies share value. How many times do you need to be beaten around the head by Fox before you finally realize that they are playing you for a willing fool?That alone should disqualify my point of view.
What we know is that he is a lying sack of shit who can't be trusted. The only thing sadder are the idiots that believe anything he says.
It shouldn't have been titled 'what to know', it should have been titled 'What to think about the Tucker Carlson footage'. Just in case it raised any suspicion in anyone's mind.
That alone should disqualify my point of view.
This can not be repeated enough.Believing anything Carlson says disqualifies you from the pool of sane humans. His employer says that he is not meant to be believed, he himself admits to deliberately lying to his viewers to protect the companies share value. How many times do you need to be beaten around the head by Fox before you finally realize that they are playing you for a willing fool?
"MITCH IS A DIRTY RINO!"
So far I haven't heard of anything Carlson's show chose to air which changes a thing, no matter what they claimed it showed.
It shouldn't have been titled 'what to know', it should have been titled 'What to think about the Tucker Carlson footage'. Just in case it raised any suspicion in anyone's mind.
Why did we need to see videos of people wandering down hallways? No one is arguing that every person at the insurrection was rabidly violent 100% of the time. You don't need to see video of an accused criminal obeying the law at other times at their trial. You need to see video of them allegedly breaking the law in order to determine whether or not a law has been broken. There is no amount of video of a person being a good citizen that cancels out one video of them committing a crime.Undoutedly what the Democrats would have included in the 'Select Committee' had it really been what they claimed: 'A Search for the truth'.
But of course, the Democrats in control of the 'Select Committee' couldn't bring themselves to that, and instead delivered a clearly politically one sided political theater, where anything that didn't support their demanded political narrative was excluded.
So I figure take the Select Committee's findings and documentation, add in Tucker's revelations and conclusions, divide it all by about 1/2, and it might be closer to the truth. But that exercise is left to the individual to make up their mind, if they can still do so in a non-partisan, even-handed way; but as politically polarized as everyone has become it's rather a misbegotten hope than anything that might become reality.
You do realize that the hearings were a report on the findings of a Congressional Investigative Committee, right?and instead delivered a clearly politically one sided political theater, where anything that didn't support their demanded political narrative was excluded.
Is this not 'the other side of the story?' worth taking into account? Rounding out the story of what happened that day at the location?Why did we need to see videos of people wandering down hallways?
Funny, that's not what the lefties around here have been posting, some extremists demanding summery firing squads at dawn.No one is arguing that every person at the insurrection was rabidly violent 100% of the time.
I don't think that is anything even close to what I was supporting. Can you cite a post from me which did?You don't need to see video of an accused criminal obeying the law at other times at their trial. You need to see video of them allegedly breaking the law in order to determine whether or not a law has been broken. There is no amount of video of a person being a good citizen that cancels out one video of them committing a crime.
They presented what happened. The mainstream media reported on the most exciting and controversial parts, because that's what the mainstream media does. It is no different than Fox News showing video of a violent criminal attacking an innocent person, but refusing to show video of him playing basketball and laughing with friends. Is this a lie? Are they pushing an agenda here? Or is the video of him behaving innocuously simply not at all relevant to the crime he committed?Is this not 'the other side of the story?' worth taking into account? Rounding out the story of what happened that day at the location?
Funny, that's not what the lefties around here have been posting, some extremists demanding summery firing squads at dawn.
I mean I'll agree with you that they are foolish in declaring such overly broad guilt and demanding such action, from my view the criminal justice system has acquitted itself pretty well in the proceedings related to these prosecutions, filing charges for which there was evidence to support those charges.
I don't think that is anything even close to what I was supporting. Can you cite a post from me which did?
I think my position on this specific topic has been consistent and clear: 'I think the criminal justice system has acquitted itself pretty well in the proceeding related to these prosecutions.'
Do you disagree? If so, why?
Now, if you want to discuss the politically and evidentiary one-sided presentation of the Democrats 'Selection Committee' on the events, that a completely different topic to the above.
That Democrat controlled Congressional Investigative Committee which is exactly as I described it.You do realize that the hearings were a report on the findings of a Congressional Investigative Committee, right?
Only if the DOJ brings charges, which they'll have to prove in a court of law.And you do realize that if politicians commit crimes, it's not political, right?
What exactly were Carlson's revelations? There was no new information added. There was nothing that showed that the riot didn't happen? There wasn't anything that changed what we know about Jan 6 already.add in Tucker's revelations and conclusions
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?