Will he win the Pulitzer prize? - Tucker Carlson Discussion

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

The Pulitzer will almost certainly have been captured by Woke, in which case they’d never award anything to a genuine journalist like Carlson.

In fact, the more he exposes the regime the more Pulitzer disdains him.

reply

[–] Kendricks (2083) 3 months ago

Pretty much...

Wiki:
Some critics of the Pulitzer Prize have accused the organization of favoring those who support liberal causes or oppose conservative causes. Conservative columnist L. Brent Bozell Jr. said that the Pulitzer Prize has a "liberal legacy", particularly in its prize for commentary.[62] He pointed to a 31-year period in which only five conservatives won prizes for commentary. 2010 Pulitzer Prize winner for commentary Kathleen Parker wrote, "It's only because I'm a conservative basher that I'm now recognized."[63] Alexander Theroux describes the Pulitzer Prize as "an eminently silly award, [that] has often been handed out as a result of pull and political log-rolling, and that to some of the biggest frauds and fools alike."[64]

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Yep that tracks

reply

[–] Ranb (7266) 3 months ago

Carlson is more softball pitcher than journalist.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16427) 3 months ago

https://youtu.be/dxylCxBXElg

reply

[–] phony (214) 3 months ago

Thats why it was heavily criticized in The Wire.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

It's the biggest deal in journalism since I cannot think when. This is potentially world-shaking and could establish international understanding in a way our propaganda rag newspapers do not even aspire to aspire to; and I mean all of them.

reply

[–] emori (3096) 3 months ago

LOl. what? Are you trolling OP? Tell me you do. Because it's hilarious if you don't

reply

[–] Crocodile (2954) 3 months ago

Or you could accept that someone disagree with you

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Putin said, nor revealed nothing that we don't already know.

reply

[–] Crocodile (2954) 3 months ago

But its still a big deal managing to interview him in this time period

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Putin is obviously going to grant access to sycophants like Tucker Carlson.

reply

[–] Crocodile (2954) 3 months ago

I dont think its that easy to get a interview with him

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Putin wants interviews with compliant international media with a large footprint. Any American journalist like Tucker is perfect for him.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

You calling Carlson compliant? Funny.
It really did not matter for Carlson, the revolutionary innovation was allowing an enemy leader to be interviewed by an American celebrity.
The idea that Putin can like Svengali hypnotize an American journalist to tell lies is unbelievable.
Take the time to watch the interview.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>You calling Carlson compliant? Funny.

Yes. In terms of the Russia/Ukraine issue. He's repeatedly made pro-Putin/pro-Russia comments.

Putin has repeatedly denied interviews from the BBC.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> He's repeatedly made pro-Putin/pro-Russia comments.

You flip and flop on discussions as well as any Republican.

There are things in the media now that are widely accepted as fact now that Putin said in his interview. If you posted them on the Washington Post discussion forums would have gotten your comment- and not just one, but all comments delete and put you in time-out or got your banned. Same with the New York Times. Same with Twitter and other Social Media sites. This is one good thing about MovieChat, except for the trolls like yourself.

Because you are the judge of anything anyone does that is pro-Russian or not sufficiently patriotic American.

You are a dishonest, inconsistent jerk who cannot discuss anything in good faith and an open mind. Again, I ask you if you listened to the interview?

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>You flip and flop on discussions as well as any Republican.

What does this do with Tucker Carlson expressing many pro-Russia comments and sympathies?

>There are things in the media now that are widely accepted as fact now that Putin said in his interview. If you posted them on the Washington Post discussion forums would have gotten your comment- and not just one, but all comments delete and put you in time-out or got your banned. Same with the New York Times. Same with Twitter and other Social Media sites. This is one good thing about MovieChat, except for the trolls like yourself.

Such as what, exactly?

>You are a dishonest, inconsistent jerk who cannot discuss anything in good faith and an open mind. Again, I ask you if you listened to the interview?

I've answered this 4 times now.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

You did not answer, or indicate that you were in fact talking out your butt at the time I asked if you had watched/read it.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

I answered repeatedly that I had read articles, but haven't watched it. Apparently Putin just droned on about "muh historical grievances" for half of it. I already know that he thinks Ukraine isn't a state.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

You don't get it ... when you say we ... you are lying, because most of that if you said any of it on a Washington Post chat board would get your booted out.

If it was known it was repudiated and attacked.

Yes, Putin told the story and he got the details right. Anyone who cares to listen to that interview knows the world a little bit better. The fact that Putin can sit and focus for two solid hours and threat the needle on a very difficult narrative to explain, and document it, is impressive.

I doubt many in our government could do anything like that.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>You don't get it ... when you say we ... you are lying, because most of that if you said any of it on a Washington Post chat board would get your booted out.

I wasn't aware the Washington Post chatboard was the state.

>If it was known it was repudiated and attacked.

Yes, people don't tend to agree with imperialistic claims of denying another state the right to exist.

>Yes, Putin told the story and he got the details right. Anyone who cares to listen to that interview knows the world a little bit better. The fact that Putin can sit and focus for two solid hours and threat the needle on a very difficult narrative to explain, and document it, is impressive.

"History means Ukraine is ours by right". Is that the details you're referring to?

Also, no: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNESt9dwZH0

Putin's claims are rooted in nationalism.

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

It's one thing for people to say "Putin believes this or that", but it's another thing for Putin to say it in his own words.

Also, I've debated with people who claim that Putin has expansionist intentions into Europe. Putin's own words contradict those claims.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>It's one thing for people to say "Putin believes this or that", but it's another thing for Putin to say it in his own words.

He's prattled on about how "Ukraine doesn't really exist" in old articles and speeches before.

>Also, I've debated with people who claim that Putin has expansionist intentions into Europe. Putin's own words contradict those claims.

And isn't Ukraine part of Europe?

If Putin does, he's hardly likely to say "Yes, when we're done with Ukraine we'll launch operations into the Baltics or Moldova".

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

"If Putin does..." The left/neocon argument which demands hundreds of billions to Ukraine seems to be significantly predicated on this hypothetical threat. Think of all the massive infrastructure rebuilding, or other improvements to the U.S. that you're willing to give up on in order to fund a war in a place that most Americans knew nothing about just a few years ago. Then think about how peace negotiations were apparently on the way, but the West was unwilling to do this.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

That's a different point altogether. First you said Russia has no eyes on any part of Europe, and then you say "Oh well, if they do it's not our problem". By saying that you've conceded that it could be true that they do.

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

I think you're misunderstanding, because I was referring to the claim that Russia has "expansionist intentions into Europe" (e.g. into Poland, etc.).

And while the U.S. should have some interest in the Russia-Ukraine war, the reality is that it is a local dispute to them, and they two nations should have been able to come to a peace agreement. Unfortunately, it seems like the West is not interested in peace between these countries.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>I think you're misunderstanding, because I was referring to the claim that Russia has "expansionist intentions into Europe" (e.g. into Poland, etc.).

Baltics are perfectly liable. Hitler lied constantly about his territorial demands. Why should we think Putin is any different?

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

Is your argument that because Hitler lied some 80 years ago, that indicates Putin is lying today? I hope you understand why yours is a weak argument.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

If Putin has territorial designs on the Baltics, or Moldova - he's hardly likely to openly admit it, is he?

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

Let me put this in another way: what convincing evidence do you have that Putin, a man who is 71 years old and who has already governed a massive country for 24 years, is planning on invading the Baltics?

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

I think it's more likely that if NATO collapsed, he would lean on them attempting to bring them under his sphere of influence.

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

That sounds like a hypothetical that is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. This is why I think the pro-war push has been contrived. Random people on Twitter started putting up Ukrainian flag emojis in their profile pics and tried to convince themselves that arming Ukraine was somehow of vital importance, and it always rang pretty flat.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/13/russia-puts-estonian-prime-minister-kaja-kallas-on-wanted-list

Can you tell me what you make of this development?

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

It looks like Russia is trying to bring charges against her. What of it? Are you suggesting that bringing a charge against the Estonian leader for taking down statues means Russia is about to attack?

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

So Russian domestic policy about USSR memorials now applies globally?

You don't think this might be the possible opening salvo to manufacturing consent to a possible "special military operation" down the lines?

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

I don't know enough about Russian/Estonian law to make a conclusion one way or another, and I suspect you don't, either. However, trying to turn this into an "opening salvo" to an international war seems like you're fishing for something to prop up your narrative with.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>I don't know enough about Russian/Estonian law to make a conclusion one way or another, and I suspect you don't

Russia has long complained about the treatment of the Russian diaspora in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - and long decried the removal of USSR memorials in those countries.

>However, trying to turn this into an "opening salvo" to an international war seems like you're fishing for something to prop up your narrative with.

By "opening salvo" I mean justification for a potential intervention within the next decade, pending the prospect of the dismantlement of NATO.

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

Russia has long complained about the treatment of the Russian diaspora in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - and long decried the removal of USSR memorials in those countries.

I'm referring to the legal aspects of the case. In other words, the grounds for bringing charges that have a basis in law.

By "opening salvo" I mean justification for a potential intervention within the next decade, pending the prospect of the dismantlement of NATO.

Yes, that is the way I understood it. But again, you seem to be doing what plenty of other neocons/leftists have been doing, which is arguing *for* war with Russia based on hypothetical threats posed by Russia. The effect of the argument is to hand over what is essentially a blank check to countries such as Ukraine because of the worries of some people that Russia might do something.

Hopefully you can see why this is not a convincing argument.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>I'm referring to the legal aspects of the case. In other words, the grounds for bringing charges that have a basis in law.

What's the legal basis here? Does Russian laws now apply to Estonia?

>Yes, that is the way I understood it. But again, you seem to be doing what plenty of other neocons/leftists have been doing, which is arguing *for* war with Russia based on hypothetical threats posed by Russia.

No, in this case I'm arguing for maintaining NATO as a bulwark and suggesting that if NATO was to collapse, Russia might well attack the baltics.

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

What's the legal basis here? Does Russian laws now apply to Estonia?

Exactly. This is why I said I don't know enough about Russian/Estonian law.

No, in this case I'm arguing for maintaining NATO as a bulwark and suggesting that if NATO was to collapse, Russia might well attack the baltics.

If your theory of justification is predicated on a NATO "collapse", it means you're pinning the need to throw billions and billions to Ukraine because of the remotest of occurrences that has never been seriously considered to my knowledge. And then, you'd still need to argue that if NATO were to collapse, Russia would most likely then attack the Baltics. This is all just too many hurdles to cross.

Look, you need understand that funding what amounts to a massively expensive war on the other side of the world might not be a vital American interest. Meanwhile, America's debt has surpassed $33 trillion. Ask yourself how exactly funding this war helps American citizens. Then ask yourself why Ukraine and Russia would not have been better off long ago had peace negotiations actually been discussed.

It's all so maddening.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Exactly. This is why I said I don't know enough about Russian/Estonian law.

...

Here's the answer: They don't. Estonia is an independent nation. Their decision to remove USSR memorials in their country has nothing to do with Russia. Russia is now claiming, apparently, that their laws apply to Estonia.

>If your theory of justification is predicated on a NATO "collapse", it means you're pinning the need to throw billions and billions to Ukraine because of the remotest of occurrences that has never been seriously considered to my knowledge.

Throw "billions and billions" at Ukraine to help them defend themselves, for as long as they can and want to.

>And then, you'd still need to argue that if NATO were to collapse, Russia would most likely then attack the Baltics. This is all just too many hurdles to cross.

It's two hurdles. 1) Ukraine falls, not impossible at all given US support wavering and the potential of Trump winning.

And 2) NATO collapsing. Not impossible at all given the prospect of Trump winning with all the things he has said.

>Look, you need understand that funding what amounts to a massively expensive war on the other side of the world might not be a vital American interest. Meanwhile, America's debt has surpassed $33 trillion. Ask yourself how exactly funding this war helps American citizens. Then ask yourself why Ukraine and Russia would not have been better off long ago had peace negotiations actually been discussed.

That it might not be of interest to the USA doesn't in fact change the prospect that Russia and Putin may well have revanchist goals and would use the collapse of NATO to push for them.

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

Here's the answer: They don't. Estonia is an independent nation. Their decision to remove USSR memorials in their country has nothing to do with Russia. Russia is now claiming, apparently, that their laws apply to Estonia.

Are you well versed in international law? Because you didn't say it before if you are. Or, if you're just giving your opinion based upon mere generalities, you're not in a position to know for sure one way or the other.

Throw "billions and billions" at Ukraine to help them defend themselves, for as long as they can and want to.

You're simply underscoring the insanity of your own argument. America has no obligation to ship money over to Ukraine to "for as long as they can and want to". If you wish to send your own life savings over to Ukraine for their defense, you are free to do so, but please stop claiming that the rest of the American taxpayers must also follow suit.

It's two hurdles. 1) Ukraine falls, not impossible at all given US support wavering and the potential of Trump winning.

And 2) NATO collapsing. Not impossible at all given the prospect of Trump winning with all the things he has said.

I don't really care about theoretical possibilities that can be imagined. Again, this is why your position is so weak. Demanding that billions be shipped to Ukraine to counter a remote danger, while REAL and ACTUAL danger occurs in the United States, is a rather absurd position to take.

That it might not be of interest to the USA doesn't in fact change the prospect that Russia and Putin may well have revanchist goals and would use the collapse of NATO to push for them.

"may well have" = you're just throwing out remote possibilities here to justify massive spending.

Again, as I've said before - your argument is weak, and the explanations you have provided here have only reinforced the weakness of it.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Are you well versed in international law? Because you didn't say it before if you are. Or, if you're just giving your opinion based upon mere generalities, you're not in a position to know for sure one way or the other.

What international law says that Estonia must ask Russia for permission before they remove soviet memorials or statues? There isn't any. It doesn't exist. Estonia is an independent state that does not answer to Russia.

>You're simply underscoring the insanity of your own argument. America has no obligation to ship money over to Ukraine to "for as long as they can and want to". If you wish to send your own life savings over to Ukraine for their defense, you are free to do so, but please stop claiming that the rest of the American taxpayers must also follow suit.

I did not say that the USA is legally bound to do this. Just that I think they ought to do so.

>I don't really care about theoretical possibilities that can be imagined. Again, this is why your position is so weak. Demanding that billions be shipped to Ukraine to counter a remote danger, while REAL and ACTUAL danger occurs in the United States, is a rather absurd position to take.

Do you want the USA to leave NATO?

reply

[–] BKB (6197) 3 months ago

Yes, give him the Pulitzer and make him Trump's VP and all is right in the world with Biden done and a fresh start for the American people moving forward

reply

[–] emori (3096) 3 months ago

Trump was sitting for 4 years in the office. And did one giant nothing. Could not even build his stupid wall. Yet his fanatics hope he will do something second time.. What makes you believe in that?

reply

[–] BKB (6197) 3 months ago

Um yeah Zoomer except for one small hair in the soup: Trump had a growth attached to him known as Nancy Pelosi-itis along with her Court Jester Chuck Schumer stopping him from doing his job on a daily basis, so please, spare me

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Many administrations have had to deal with a House of Representatives or Senate that is controlled by the non-presidential party.

reply

[–] Ranb (7266) 3 months ago

Congress was controlled by the GOP from January 2017 to January 2019. What was Trump's excuse then?

reply

[–] emori (3096) 3 months ago

Like do you understand that no one will allow him to do whatever he wants second time too? You see how republicans are blocking Congress on russia's orders now. Democrats will block anything Trump will do in Senate or Congress, whoever they will have control.

So it's all gonna be whining and talking. And never doing anything. He will just go play golf and suck putins balls. And go to North Korea to suck balls of their dictator.

reply

[–] BKB (6197) 3 months ago

The irony of you implying Trump's sucking North Korea's balls when Biden is clearly in bed with China and Xi Jinping.. Shut the fuck up Zoomer 🙄

reply

[–] emori (3096) 3 months ago

I really don't understand tumpists obsession with China. Literally USA's economic partner and economical rival. Did not invade anyone. Did not start war. Tries to say neutral in russia-Ukraine war. Yet Trump and his fanatics try to pretend it's some big Enemy of USA.

While russia, iran and north korea are right there screaming how they hate USA and want to destroy it.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>I really don't understand tumpists obsession with China. Literally USA's economic partner and economical rival. Did not invade anyone. Did not start war. Tries to say neutral in russia-Ukraine war. Yet Trump and his fanatics try to pretend it's some big Enemy of USA.

Taiwan, Xinjiang cultural genocide, Tibet, Hong Kong.

China is not a good state at all.

reply

[–] emori (3096) 3 months ago

russia, iran and north korea are literally 100 worse. But for some reason trumpists kiss their asses and being obsessed with China. LOL. Why? Because Trump told them to. And they can't think for themselves.

Tomorrow Trump will say he loves China and their leader is a "good guy" and all trumpists will stay on their knees and submit to China and praise it. It's so hilarious and pathetic.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>russia, iran and north korea are literally 100 worse.

All of these countries are much smaller population-wise than China and have much less influence.

I don't agree that Trumpists suck up to Iran though.

And yes, the notion that Trump is especially anti-china is nonsense.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11049) 3 months ago

I really don't understand

Yes we know.

reply

[–] SandyR (7388) 2 months ago

The warhawks want people hating China in case China decides to take Taiwan (which they historically consider theirs anyway). The warhawks want war with China because the warhawks are lower than garbage.

reply

[–] emori (3096) 2 months ago

Sure Major Ivan

reply

[–] SandyR (7388) 2 months ago

Ah, you must be a warhawk as well. May you march on the front lines!

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

How is Joe Biden "in bed" with China and Xi?

reply

[–] BKB (6197) 3 months ago

You have to be the dumbest Zoomer I've ever had the unfortunate pleasure of interacting with to ask such a Question??

https://giphy.com/gifs/moodman-TJawtKM6OCKkvwCIqX

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

That is not an answer. I'll try again. How is Joe Biden "in bed" with China and Xi?

reply

[–] BKB (6197) 3 months ago

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_3c791184-bf12-4acd-bdd6-a1f8449dfe16

Of course CNN will never own up to it, but he took $$$$ 1.5 Billion from China

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

So your evidence for Biden taking 1.5 billion from China is?

reply

[–] BKB (6197) 3 months ago

https://oversight.house.gov/blog/wsj-opinion-money-from-china-traced-to-joe-bidens-bank-account-unrelated-to-actual-business/

If this isn't good enough, then shove your claim of evidence in your ass Zoomer

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

First of all, where are you getting the "1.5 billion" number from?

Here's a more detailed response to it:

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/whats-behind-republicans-claim-that-joe-biden-received-40000-of-laundered-chinese-money/

Why should I trust the initial claims over this?

reply

[–] BKB (6197) 3 months ago

And there it is right there.. Please do us all a favor and stop instigating debates where someone posts proof you ask for, only to split hairs over it afterwards..

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

You posted claims. None of it constituted any actual evidence, and is widely discredited.

And I'll do whatever the fuck I want

reply

[–] BKB (6197) 3 months ago

You have an agenda and everyone knows what that is which is why you're back on ignore because you offer and bring nothing to this website except trolling, so you know the drill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiKXcHyGMM8

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

What is my "agenda" exactly?

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

If Joe Biden is "in bed" with China, why hasn't he completely abandoned any and all co-operation and support of Taiwan?

reply

[–] Crocodile (2954) 3 months ago

He did nothing? Yeah right,he did not start a new war! And the wall was almost completed,if there would have not been cheating in 2020 now we would have had it completed since years. Sleepy Joe stopped it,and now he is thinking to actually complete the wall!

reply

[–] emori (3096) 3 months ago

Are there Razzies for journo society? That's what he should get. That was the most embarrassing over hyped "interview". He sat there like a scared call-girl. Too afraid to even interrupt putin 30 minute speech. It was putins monologue. It wasn't interview.

putin used calrson to spread his propaganda. Not to answer questions. Real journalist would actually pressure and ask.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Vladimir Putin does not like being challenged. I suspect Tucker Carlson had a lot of things he would not be allowed to ask:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlP9UaVNkHI&t=777s

reply

[–] emori (3096) 3 months ago

I mean everyone said putin will never answer anything and would just repeat what he already said 100 times. Its only stupid trumpists had some weird hopes that putin will tell them if we are alone in the Universe or some shit.

But I was truly shocked that carlson didn't even tried. Sit there like a scared hooker who is too afraid of her pimp.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

The purpose of the video was not for Tucker Carlson to
attack Putin, it was for Putin to be able to express his and
Russia's point of view to perhaps lead to some understanding
in enough Americans to shift, a little bit, of the public away
from war-mongering BS.

But, by the way, you are lying if you think TC did not press Putin
on issues and ask him why he did certain things, and if that was
a contradiction.

Having listened to the interview early on and then seen what
came out in the media on both sides, it was shamefully just the
worst kind of propaganda pushing listeners away from listening
to it. That should never be a thing.

reply

[–] emori (3096) 3 months ago

Yes, with a complete straight face you said that Carlson went to Berlin in 1943 to give hitler a chance "to express his and Germany's point of view to perhaps lead to some understanding
in enough Americans to shift, a little bit, of the public away from war-mongering BS".

LOL. And then you all wonder why people laugh at stupid trumpists and call them traitors and nazies.

Carlson was hired by nazi russia to "white wash" their crimes against humanity and bitch failed t it.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

Firstly, there is no comparison between what Putin is doing and what the Nazis were doing and aimed to do. You would know that if you bothered to inform yourself of anything.

I think I mentioned to you about you having no clue of the connections of America to Nazi Germany. Take a look at the big Nazi meeting in NYC's Madison Square Garden on February 20, 1939.

Ford and IBM are just two American companies who maintained business relations with Nazi Germany well into the war, as documented in some of the award-winning books by Edwin Black.

> And then you all wonder why people laugh at stupid trumpists and call them traitors and nazies.

I don't wonder about that, and nor do I support Trump.

You know nothing and are not interested in learning anything, and "Nazis" does not have an "e" in it dipwit.

reply

[–] emori (3096) 3 months ago

putin literally copies everything that nazies and hitler did. literally.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6457) 3 months ago

Putting a microphone on someone isn't journalism. His subject even mocked him, lol https://x.com/ronfilipkowski/status/1755757290953515479

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Depends who the subject is. The mere act of interviewing a figure forbidden by the regime is award-worthy.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6457) 3 months ago

Again, throwing a couple of softball questions at someone isn't journalism no matter how historically important the interviewee is.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

The mere act of interviewing a figure forbidden by the regime is award-worthy.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6457) 3 months ago

Forbidden by what regime? Wtf are you talking about?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

The regime that wants constant wars and mass immigration across the West at all costs, and which controls the mainstream media.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Where is your evidence that "the regime" blocks attempts to interview Putin?

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10999) 3 months ago

snowflakesayswhat?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

I never said that ‘the regime blocks attempts to interview Putin’ so why would I need to provide evidence of that?

The regime’s goal is to demonise Putin, while giving the most hilariously blowjob interviews to their puppet Zelensky to humanise him. Watch this and try not to laugh: https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/05/zelensky-music-erin-burnett-sot-intv-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>I never said that ‘the regime blocks attempts to interview Putin’ so why would I need to provide evidence of that?

"Depends who the subject is. The mere act of interviewing a figure forbidden by the regime is award-worthy."

What does "forbidden" in this context mean exactly?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Journalists are prohibited from conducting any kind of fair interview with Putin (meanwhile, regime ‘journalists’ are tasked with humanising and puffing Zelensky - their puppet)

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

How are they "prohibited" from conducting a "fair" interview with Putin? What would a "fair" interview look like?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/13/zelensky-washington-post-interview-transcript/

This is an interview with Zelensky.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

A fair interview with Putin would look like Tucker’s interview with him.

The fact that regime outlets like CNN are conducting blowjob ‘interviews’ with Zelensky like this tells you all need to know about the regime media: https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/05/zelensky-music-erin-burnett-sot-intv-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

You mean where Tucker sat there meek and mild and barely challenged him on anything?

Why do you keep posting that link and ignored this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/13/zelensky-washington-post-interview-transcript/

This is an interview with Zelensky.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Nope, Tucker conducted a fair interview, and for that he has been demonised by the regime, and regime-bitches like yourself. You’re just pissed that it wasn’t another regime smear-piece.

I can’t open that article without subscribing, and it’s not going to detract from the fact that the regime adores their puppet Zelensky and tries to make gullible people like you adore him too with hilarious blowjob ‘interviews’ like this: https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/05/zelensky-music-erin-burnett-sot-intv-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Nope, Tucker conducted a fair interview, and for that he has been demonised by the regime, and regime-bitches like yourself. You’re just pissed that it wasn’t another regime smear-peace.

How was it fair? He let Putin prattle on for as long as he likes about how Putin ultimately doesn't think Ukraine is a state, or should be a state. He didn't challenge in any sense Putin's claims about NATO or the west. He barely challenged him on anything.

>I can’t open that article without subscribing, and it’s not going to detract from the fact that the regime adores their puppet Zelensky and tries to make gullible people like you adore him too with hilarious blowjob ‘interviews’ like this:

I didn't watch, and haven't watched any such videos.

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/fzgps/date/2023-09-10/segment/01

There are plenty of more informed interviews with Zelensky around.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Amazing how you’re so irked by Tucker’s neutral interview and yet have nothing to say about this utter travesty of regime ‘journalism’: https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/05/zelensky-music-erin-burnett-sot-intv-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

It's an excerpt of a soft interview. Tucker also gave Putin a friendly, soft interview. The BBC would've hit back on his historical claims to Ukraine and his allegations about NATO.

Hence why Putin wouldn't agree to such an interview.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> Tucker also gave Putin a friendly, soft interview.

That is nonsense, and it is why this interview is so ground-breaking, and has provoked a massive knee-jerk propaganda reactionary response from all corners of all media. ( and you )

I could not believe the questions and aggressiveness in Tucker Carlson's style in this interview, and even more amazing was that Putin took it, and patiently, logically, and linearly replied based on established fact, and then a little of his opinon, which was mostly couched in questions back to Tucker Carlson, America, NATO and Biden.

Putin never really said he had historical claims to Ukraine - you've kept saying that since the interview came out, when you admittedly did not read or listen to it.

He described how most of Ukraine was transferred to Ukraine in modern times, i.e. from 1900 onward. Nowhere did I hear him say that, therefore Russia has a right to take over Ukraine, and that is not what Russia is doing anyway.

He did take over Crimea, but that was because after the USSR, Crimea was under Ukrainian control, which was not a problem at the time. When that was threatened, Russia felt threatened, and since 90-something% of Crimeans are Russians and they held a plebiscite to annex to Russia instead of live under discriminatory Ukrainian control where Neo-Nazis and Nationalists were running violently rampant, and who can blame them?

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>That is nonsense, and it is why this interview is so ground-breaking, and has provoked a massive knee-jerk propaganda reactionary response from all corners of all media. ( and you )

Hearing Putin ramble on about Ukrainian/Russian history for an hour is not remotely ground-breaking. Love how he implied Poland "provoked" Nazi Germany to start WW2 though. What a guy.

>I could not believe the questions and aggressiveness in Tucker Carlson's style in this interview, and even more amazing was that Putin took it, and patiently, logically, and linearly replied based on established fact, and then a little of his opinon, which was mostly couched in questions back to Tucker Carlson, America, NATO and Biden.

You are so easily impressed, it's utterly pathetic.

What do you think of Russias position on the Israel and Palestine conflict? You are outraged about the BBC. Wait until you hear the Kremlins line!

>Putin never really said he had historical claims to Ukraine - you've kept saying that since the interview came out, when you admittedly did not read or listen to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNESt9dwZH0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBSh0Ok6cU

Watch these videos, if you so please. The "Ukraine shouldn't get to exist" is beyond this speech.

>He described how most of Ukraine was transferred to Ukraine in modern times, i.e. from 1900 onward. Nowhere did I hear him say that, therefore Russia has a right to take over Ukraine, and that is not what Russia is doing anyway.

Russia is annexing as much as it can, it just can't break out into Ukraine any further. What's their justification for annexing the Zap Oblast, and Kherson? What do they have to do with the Donbass region?

>He did take over Crimea, but that was because after the USSR, Crimea was under Ukrainian control, which was not a problem at the time. When that was threatened, Russia felt threatened, and since 90-something% of Crimeans are Russians and they held a plebiscite to annex to Russia instead of live under discriminatory Ukrainian control where Neo-Nazis and Nationalists were running violently rampant, and who can blame them?

I await evidence that Crimea and Ukraine-at-large were infested by nazis running "violently rampant".

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> Hearing Putin ramble on about Ukrainian/Russian history for an hour is not remotely ground-breaking.

You're great at saving me time reading your BS. Thanks for being considerate if you be a civil debate partner.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

So you won't respond, can't respond to any of my responses.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

Won't.

Could if you were ever able to have a discussion/debate without the POINTLESS shotgun antagonism.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

You made many different points. I replied to them.

"I get to do shotgun arguments but I'll cry if anyone else does them"

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> You made many different points. I replied to them.

Perhaps. Civil discussion would be to pick one and discuss, instead your replies are always the same.

If there are many points, then pursue the ones that interest you.

Or, are you going to tell me again no one tells me what to do. I am not telling you what to do. I am telling you what interests me in a discussion.

Mostly you're playing games.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Perhaps. Civil discussion would be to pick one and discuss, instead your replies are always the same.

So you get to make multiple claims, and I must only reply to one of them?

No. I'll reply to all of them if I like.

>Or, are you going to tell me again no one tells me what to do. I am not telling you what to do. I am telling you what interests me in a discussion.

I don't really care what "interests" you in a discussion. I will absolutely do what I want.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

Then you're merely a petulant, childish, troll.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Skavau is that, but he’s also a mendacious gaslighter who likes to play ‘the hatchling’:

https://youtu.be/nxQqaG4gl9A?si=YyfpB_HkGbEWkRCd

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

None of these eternally blame the Left things are of any interest.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Who’s eternally blaming the Left? I’m simply pointing out Skavau’s tactic here.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

Yeah, his comments are incoherent and just annoying. Most of them do not have any productive or informative content, and he only REacts to others by hectoring them, rarely if ever posting stand alone comments about his own opinions on anything.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Of course, his goal is to have you running around exhausted while he stands calmly in the centre of the squash court, tapping the ball for his amusement.

He’s a smug asshole who wants to be in control, a greasy manipulator, that’s why I constantly smack him down.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

"smack him down" apparently meaning "hurl insults". So clever.

If people make claims without any supporting argument or evidence, I ask them to back them up.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

Nailed it far as I can see.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Melton is a mental midget who doesn't understand that a political party who wins a plurality of support can't just take control of parliament.

https://moviechat.org/nm1770894/Geert-Wilders/655fbe0236256760cd09e746/the-next-dutch-pm?reply=656295c0bfe8e73818bc0cd0

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

The subject is you and your dishonest methods, not your issues poorly argued with Melton which are personal attacks, or glib name-calling.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

When have I personally attacked Melton other than when I just called him a "mental midget"?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

Not interested.

reply

[–] phony (214) 3 months ago

Look how tiny we are now, we can barely read anything :D

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

I respond in-depth to many of your claims and you cry like a little baby because I've chopped it up and responded to various claims you made within a post.

But you get to do it. Basic hypocrisy.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

You have a way to respond that never leads anywhere, nor do you offer productive alternatices, you only troll.

Then when you lose and get called on it, you insult like a little child.

My criticisms of you are accurate and to the point.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>You have a way to respond that never leads anywhere, nor do you offer productive alternatices, you only troll.

Alternatives *to what*? You make claims, I answer them.

>Then when you lose and get called on it, you insult like a little child.

I have never insulted you without you insulting me. And my "insults" are more character judgements.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

Funny

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Bullshit, there’s zero equivalence between Tucker’s fair interview with Putin and the ridiculous blowjob that CNN is giving Zelensky there.

Your low-grade gaslighting is convincing nobody, regime bitch.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Bullshit, there’s zero equivalence between Tucker’s fair interview with Putin and the ridiculous blowjob that CNN is giving Zelensky there.

Tucker sat there and listened, without any objection, to Putin prattling on and accusing Poland in 1939 of antagonising Nazi Germany and starting WW2.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

TC's point I assume was to allow Putin to speak and explain his point of view. I think the motive of that was how the American people have been treated to some lies and propaganda. To that end Tucker was not that there to judge or disagree.

Q1 - Why is that bad, unless you think the US propagandizing Americans through our massive [social]media and the whole democracy thing is all about brainwashing and propagandizing and not critiquing facts and narratives in an open free society?

Q2 - Russia and Putin aside the US has propagandized our country into war many times, do you think we are supposed to do nothing?

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>TC's point I assume was to allow Putin to speak and explain his point of view. I think the motive of that was how the American people have been treated to some lies and propaganda. To that end Tucker was not that there to judge or disagree.

And he never challenged any of it.

What "lies" do American people apparently believe about Russian or Ukrainian history as spread by American propaganda?

>Q2 - Russia and Putin aside the US has propagandized our country into war many times, do you think we are supposed to do nothing?

Who is "we" here? I don't know what you're referring to.

Aren't you pretty jingoistic for attacking the middle-east yourself?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

I never suggested attacking the Middle East. What is wrong with you? That is the perfect example of the uselessness of discussing anything with you.

I believe there is a huge difference in threat and social toxicity, that is backed up with facts and history, between Russia/China and the twin axes in the Middle East of Saudi Arabia and Iran including Turkey and the various threats and opportunities of reducing intolerance and totalitarianism effectively in the world. The ME is a festering toxic society of murder and abuse. Why are you defending it?

Russia is defending what it believes to be its security interests. The core Arab/Iranian ME attacks Israel because they hate Jews and want to destroy the state of Israel and genocide the Jews.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>I never suggested attacking the Middle East. What is wrong with you? That is the perfect example of the uselessness of discussing anything with you.

What do you propose regarding the Middle-East?

>I believe there is a huge difference in threat and social toxicity, that is backed up with facts and history, between Russia/China and the twin axes in the Middle East of Saudi Arabia and Iran including Turkey and the various threats and opportunities of reducing intolerance and totalitarianism effectively in the world. The ME is a festering toxic society of murder and abuse. Why are you defending it?

Not sure where I "defended" it there, exactly.

Russias official reason is that its defending its security interests, which rests on the false proposition that Ukraine was going to join NATO anytime soon (it wasn't), and that preposterous notion that NATO plans to attack Russia.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> which rests on the false proposition that Ukraine was going to join NATO anytime soon (it wasn't)

This is not true on so many levels. Certainly not "preposterous".

First, 20 years ago Bush said the goal was to bring Ukraine into NATO.

Then we couped the government and enabled Nazi Nationalists to threaten the civilian government of Ukraine.

The truth value of what the US said and did is documented fact, whereas accusations that Russia wanted to take over Ukraine and then other European states and re-etablish the USSR is totally Pentagon made up fantasy.

Those are lies you say.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>This is not true on so many levels. Certainly not "preposterous".

Not only did Ukraine not meet the minimum entry requirements (civil war, occupied land, civil society requirements) - it would have go through each member nation voting. And if Hungary and Turkey dragged their heels over Sweden and Finland, the odds of them letting Ukraine in were basically non-existent.

>First, 20 years ago Bush said the goal was to bring Ukraine into NATO.

Long-term goal. Not viable in 2022.

>Then we couped the government and enabled Nazi Nationalists to threaten the civilian government of Ukraine.

Again, denying Ukrainian agency - suggesting the people didn't really want to remove Viktor Yanukovych.

>The truth value of what the US said and did is documented fact, whereas accusations that Russia wanted to take over Ukraine and then other European states and re-etablish the USSR is totally Pentagon made up fantasy.

Except Russia is literally invading Ukraine right now, and has annexed large regions of Ukraine that have nothing to do with any disputes in the Donbass region.

In addition, Russia has also launched arrest warrants for a cluster of Baltic politicians, up to and including the Estonian Prime Minister - which is very much the prelude, I suspect, towards a justification for another "special military operation". You think that's acceptable?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

Typical BS

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

That Russia has annexed large areas of Kherson and the Zap oblast is "typical BS"?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Amazing how you’re so irked by Tucker’s neutral interview and yet have nothing to say about this utter travesty of regime ‘journalism’: https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/05/zelensky-music-erin-burnett-sot-intv-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

What questions do you think should be being asked of Zelensky, that are not? Zelensky doesn't say much other than asking for weapons and desires to take Ukrainian territory back. Putin and the Kremlin make comments every day.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

I know that blowjob puff pieces by the mainstream media like this…

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/05/zelensky-music-erin-burnett-sot-intv-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn

…show naked regime support for Zelensky, and the fact that you want to gloss over that while trying your pathetic best to demonise Tucker for his neutral interview with Putin proves that you’re a worthless regime bitch.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Not an answer.

What questions do you think should be being asked of Zelensky, that are not? Zelensky doesn't say much other than asking for weapons and desires to take Ukrainian territory back. Putin and the Kremlin make comments every day.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

I know that blowjob puff pieces by the mainstream media like this…

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/05/zelensky-music-erin-burnett-sot-intv-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn

…show naked regime support for Zelensky, and the fact that you want to gloss over that while trying your pathetic best to demonise Tucker for his neutral interview with Putin proves that you’re a worthless regime bitch.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>I know that blowjob puff pieces by the mainstream media like this…

I don't care about that video. It's not an interview.

Answer my question:

What questions do you think should be being asked of Zelensky, that are not? Zelensky doesn't say much other than asking for weapons and desires to take Ukrainian territory back. Putin and the Kremlin make comments every day.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Amazing how you’re so irked by Tucker’s neutral interview and yet have nothing to say about this utter travesty of regime ‘journalism’: https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/05/zelensky-music-erin-burnett-sot-intv-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

I don't care about that video. It's not an interview.

Answer my question:

What questions do you think should be being asked of Zelensky, that are not? Zelensky doesn't say much other than asking for weapons and desires to take Ukrainian territory back. Putin and the Kremlin make comments every day.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

If it’s true that you’re a bot, as we all suspect, just re-post your last post verbatim. Go…

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

I don't care about that video. It's not an interview.

Answer my question:

What questions do you think should be being asked of Zelensky, that are not? Zelensky doesn't say much other than asking for weapons and desires to take Ukrainian territory back. Putin and the Kremlin make comments every day.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Yep, thought so.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6457) 3 months ago

Ok, Alex Jones 🙄

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Not an argument.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6457) 3 months ago

And your conspiracy theories are? lol.

By the way, that bullshit Tucker said about no one wanting to interview Putin was even called out by the Kremlin.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

I haven’t posited any conspiracy theories, dickhead. Pay attention.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6457) 3 months ago

I bet you think Soros is behind everything, lol. Go back to twitter, nutjob.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Again, not an argument. Pathetic.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6457) 3 months ago

You think repeating conspiracy theories you find online is the same as giving arguments? You're delusional af.

I'm done here. Keep arguing with your tinfoil hat.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> You're delusional

You are delusional if you think that calling someone delusions is worth anyone's time or has any value whatsoever.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

It's telling that these regime apologists are always stunningly low-IQ NPC’s.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

I haven’t posited any conspiracy theories, dickhead. We’ve covered this. Pay attention.

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

Did you watch the entire interview? Because it was not a "softball" interview.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6457) 3 months ago

I got better shit to do than wasting 2 hours on a propaganda piece. But I did read articles about it. And the only tough question he asked was about the jailed journalist.

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

If you didn't both to watch the interview, you can't exactly make the claim you did.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

It’s incapable of independent thought and it knows it, that’s why it hasn't watched the interview.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

It was a really amazing ground-breaking interview,
whether you agree with Putin or not, he spoke in
verifiable facts, and put together a strong logical
narrative of his point of view. Of course it was his
point of view, propaganda if you will.

The bad part of propagand are the lies - so the
question is why can't the US allow this interview, and
then respond to and explain the so-called lies.

I don't think we can. Our biggest claims is that Putin
is a madman bent on world domination. That is to
ridiculous and insulting to American's point of view.

Putin pointing this out factually, in terms of population,
size, GDP, and his totalling willingness to do whatever
he can to be a good trade partner with the EU and the
US if possible. The US response has been to try to strangle
Russia's economy, and put missiles 5 minutes from Moscow.

Putin has some points, and does America. Why can they not
be discussed out in the open and reported on?

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

He barely challenged him on anything.

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

What exactly would you have done differently had *you* been the interviewer? What kind of "challenging" did you think a journalist needed to do?

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Pushed back on his claims about NATO. Pushed on why the history of Ukraine matters as to their self-determination. Ask him for evidence that Nazis make up a significant % in Ukrainian civil society, noting the election results that had the nationalist party on like 3%. Challenged his implication that Poland started WW2 by "provoking" Germany. Asked him about why LGBT people have been arrested for wearing badges.

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

Given that, have you seen any journalist "push back" to that same extent in interviews with Zelensky? If so, which journalist was it, and where is this interview?

If you cannot provide this, do you concede that the Western media has failed to "challenge" Zelensky?

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

What claims specifically by Zelensky do you take issue with?

reply

[–] Phids (317) 3 months ago

The issue here is not a claim of Zelesnky, but about the way journalists have interviewed world leaders. You claimed that Tucker "barely challenged" Putin because he did not press the Russian on certain issues. I'm wondering whether any journalist, in your mind, as truly "challenged" Zelensky in any interview, and if so, who was the journalist and when did the interview take place?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

*tumbleweeds*

What a surprise 🤣

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Putin and the Kremlin have rejected every single interview attempt from western media outlets. No-one stopped them from trying in the west.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Which media outlets supposedly attempted these interviews?

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Assuming that guy is telling the truth (a big ask but let’s go with it) the BBC is no longer a journalistic outfit, it’s a regime propaganda machine. It would be the worst kind of gotcha ‘interview’ with anything that reflects favourably on Putin edited out.

It’s the same reason regime interviews with Zelensky are always fawning blow-jobs. Watch this and try not to laugh at the ‘journalism’:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/05/zelensky-music-erin-burnett-sot-intv-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn

Putin isn’t dumb.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

The BBC, and all of America's papers of record, WaPo and NYT
are shameless in their propgandizing - and the manipulation or
their discussion boards and injection of trolls and censorship.

America will not be honest about our intent because it is essentially
an imperialist one, soft imperialism that is mostly beneficial and
order expanding for the world. We have a vision and an intent,
but America will never tell Americans or allow us to know or be
a part of, or respond to that agenda.

Basically, we want to retain a stranglehold, a chokechain on Europe
because of WWII and our legacy position in the world. In general
this viewpoint is sensible and logical - but because of the heavy
hand the US has used, and the lies and also conspiracies levied
against us there is deep distrust in the US as well.

The crime here is the destruction of Ukraine and infliction of pain
on millions of people around the world in the service or a weak to
false narrative.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>The BBC, and all of America's papers of record, WaPo and NYT
are shameless in their propgandizing - and the manipulation or
their discussion boards and injection of trolls and censorship.

What things, specifically, do they "propagandise" about?

>America will not be honest about our intent because it is essentially
an imperialist one, soft imperialism that is mostly beneficial and
order expanding for the world. We have a vision and an intent,
but America will never tell Americans or allow us to know or be
a part of, or respond to that agenda.

I actually don't think this is a secret or conspiracy at all. The USA, at least in a general modern sense, does want to influence other nations to be pro-western, democratic etc. Why is this remotely bad?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> What things, specifically, do they "propagandise" about?

Are you kidding? Think maybe your BS open-ended questions might require an effort that you do not deserve?

> I actually don't think this is a secret or conspiracy at all.

There you go. That is the first time I think I've seen you express an opinion. You don't back it up very well, and then you ask another broad open-ended question to which, if I answered it you would just throw out more open-ended questions.

You don't know how to have an actual discussion, about anything. Like that old Monty Python sketch about the argument. Man goes in to have an argument, but only gets contradiction.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Are you kidding? Think maybe your BS open-ended questions might require an effort that you do not deserve?

Back up your claims.

>There you go. That is the first time I think I've seen you express an opinion. You don't back it up very well, and then you ask another broad open-ended question to which, if I answered it you would just throw out more open-ended questions.

The USA wants to influence the world with its soft-power and diplomatic power is hardly a conspiracy, dude.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> The USA wants to influence the world with its soft-power and diplomatic power is hardly a conspiracy, dude.

Of course it is when it is not done aboveboard. Same with all countries, companies, families or individuals. No one telegraphs their true intentions, means or boundaries.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

The BBC, and all of America's papers of record, WaPo and NYT
are shameless in their propgandizing - and the manipulation or
their discussion boards and injection of trolls and censorship.

America will not be honest about our intent because it is essentially
an imperialist one, soft imperialism that is mostly beneficial and
order expanding for the world. We have a vision and an intent,
but America will never tell Americans or allow us to know or be
a part of, or respond to that agenda.

Basically, we want to retain a stranglehold, a chokechain on Europe
because of WWII and our legacy position in the world. In general
this viewpoint is sensible and logical - but because of the heavy
hand the US has used, and the lies and also conspiracies levied
against us there is deep distrust in the US as well.

The crime here is the destruction of Ukraine and infliction of pain
on millions of people around the world in the service or a weak to
false narrative.

Correct analysis.

It’s astonishing that any adult can still have faith in the mainstream media and still be unaware of the regime.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Are you claiming the BBC are "propagandists" because they ban people from their comment boxes?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

That would be one part of their propagandistic efforts.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

So having forum rules is "propaganda" now?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> So having forum rules is "propaganda" now?

You do this in every argument, redefine terms in a meaningless way to try to make some meaningless point.

Rules are public and known by all players, and consistent. What is being described are not rules.

The whole issue being discussed is the lack of consistency and fairness in terms of freedom of speech in online forums.

On YouTube they all shadow banning so if someone makes a comment on a channel that they channel manager doesn't like they can ban the person and the person cannot tell unless they log out or log in as another user and search the page.

Another way they skew results is to only allow Likes without allowing Dislikes, or even viewcounts.

Noam Chomsky has one thing right, the US feels free because in general we do not use force to regiment our population, we an do it with propaganda and manipulation of reality and words - like Orwell.

Now, I tried, so do you think you might be able to reply in a conversation or discussion instead of another broad, open-ended question? What is your experience of discussion forums, please elaborate.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>You do this in every argument, redefine terms in a meaningless way to try to make some meaningless point.

The guy is genuinely suggesting that the BBC having comment guidelines functions as some form of propaganda.

>The whole issue being discussed is the lack of consistency and fairness in terms of freedom of speech in online forums.

Welcome to the internet, dude. This has been a phenomenon online for a long time. Sites like the BBC are going to be pretty cautious, more cautious than most.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> The guy is genuinely suggesting that the BBC having comment guidelines functions as some form of propaganda.

I think that is true. Shaping audience reaction is propaganda. You don't get to see what or how they moderate, but indications are that all these social media sites try to moderate illegal or immoral content, but also boost and delete comments or arguments they like or do not like or do not want people to see. No question about it.

> Sites like the BBC are going to be pretty cautious, more cautious than most.

That is irrelevant to what has been claimed and perceived buy a lot of people - for example the BBC's over the top favoritism and support for Palestinians in the recent Oct-7 massacre and reaction.

Ireland is even worse.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>I think that is true. Shaping audience reaction is propaganda. You don't get to see what or how they moderate, but indications are that all these social media sites try to moderate illegal or immoral content, but also boost and delete comments or arguments they like or do not like or do not want people to see. No question about it.

So every single forum is "propaganda" then by this logic.

>That is irrelevant to what has been claimed and perceived buy a lot of people - for example the BBC's over the top favoritism and support for Palestinians in the recent Oct-7 massacre and reaction.

Provide evidence for their favouritism please. BBC has been fairly balanced. Going by your logic, I'd assume anything other than total endorsement of the operation in Gaza would be "favouritism" and "support" for Palestinians.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> So every single forum is "propaganda" then by this logic.

Sorry, as I mentioned that just does not follow, or it just trvializes the term.

My experience is the evidence for my opinion I put here. If you want to disagree you are free to, but why don't you prove they are objective.

> BBC has been fairly balanced.

You make essentially the same sort of claim with just your opinion with no backing.

Learn how to be civilized in discussion ( you little annoying hypocritical twerp )

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Sorry, as I mentioned that just does not follow, or it just trvializes the term.

How is the BBCs different? You'd have to provide evidence of systemic partisan censorship.

>You make essentially the same sort of claim with just your opinion with no backing.

And you've provided no evidence for yours.

And I'll do whatever the fuck I like, without your permission. Provide evidence for their favouritism please. BBC has been fairly balanced. Going by your logic, I'd assume anything other than total endorsement of the operation in Gaza would be "favouritism" and "support" for Palestinians.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> And I'll do whatever the fuck I like, without your permission.

What a thin-skinned hypocritical pussy response.

> I'd assume anything other than total endorsement of the operation in Gaza would be "favouritism" and "support" for Palestinians.

Not quite, but just about. In truth, there is little evidence to support anything Hamas, or Palsetinian leaders put out. So, can I assume you support the University CEOs/Chancellors, etc are not favoritism.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>What a thin-skinned hypocritical pussy response.

Telling you that I'm not bound by your edicts is "thin-skinned"?

>Not quite, but just about. In truth, there is little evidence to support anything Hamas, or Palsetinian leaders put out. So, can I assume you support the University CEOs/Chancellors, etc are not favoritism.

Where has the BBC come anywhere close to "supporting Hamas"? It's their job to report on the Palestine press releases. Has it ever occured to you that Israel may well lie, or make mistakes in their operation in Gaza?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

> Telling you that I'm not bound by your edicts is "thin-skinned"?

That you think you have to, or that it means anything, is your problem.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

No, I just respond that way every time someone tells me to do something.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

Daddy issue immaturity.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

The guy is genuinely suggesting that the BBC having comment guidelines functions as some form of propaganda.

No I’m not, you lying sack of shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

Yes you are. Note I said "suggesting" and not saying. And in a further response to me you concurred that is exactly what you were suggesting.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

No I didn’t, you lying sack of shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

"If those ‘rules’ are used to police and censor forbidden opinions in conjunction with a slew of other propagandistic measures, yes, obviously."

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

That quote doesn’t remotely prove your point. Fail.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

If those ‘rules’ are used to police and censor forbidden opinions in conjunction with a slew of other propagandistic measures, yes, obviously.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Assuming that guy is telling the truth (a big ask but let’s go with it) the BBC is no longer a journalistic outfit, it’s a regime propaganda machine. It would be the worst kind of gotcha ‘interview’ with anything that reflects favourably on Putin edited out.

On what basis is the BBCs a "regime propaganda machine"? Provide evidence for this claim please.

>Putin isn’t dumb.

So every single major media outlet in the west is a "propaganda machine"?

And you speak of "propaganda machines", you do realise Putin has captured all media in Russia and censored all opposition media?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

The BBC’s relentless pushing of regime narratives. Let’s take Brexit, for example, their coverage was nakedly pro-Remain with constant demonisation of Nigel Farage.

Whenever another Muslim goes on a jihadist murder spree, they will try to hide the details of the attacker for as long as possible, and pretend that they slaughtered people due to ‘mental health’ issues, when in reality they were obviously motivated by their faith. Anyone who attempts to tell the truth, like Tommy Robinson, is demonised by the BBC.

They also lie by omission. The relentless boats of illegal migrants flooding into the UK went unreported until Farage went down to the coast and started sounding the alarm.

Asking ‘on what basis is the BBC a regime propaganda machine’ is like asking ‘on what basis are you asserting that the earth isn’t flat’. It’s patently obvious to any adult paying attention.

Perhaps Putin has captured all media in Russia, I don’t care, it’s not relevant to my point.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>The BBC’s relentless pushing of regime narratives. Let’s take Brexit, for example, their coverage was nakedly pro-Remain with constant demonisation of Nigel Farage.

The BBC also platformed Nigel Farage on Question Time more than anyone else.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17631396.bbc-explaining-record-farage-question-time-appearance/

He was (is?) the most platformed individual on Question Time. Heard of it?

>Whenever another Muslim goes on a jihadist murder spree, they will try to hide the details of the attacker for as long as possible, and pretend that they slaughtered people due to ‘mental health’ issues, when in reality they were obviously motivated by their faith.

Any examples of this please?

> Anyone who attempts to tell the truth, like Tommy Robinson, is demonised by the BBC.

And what "truth" is Tommy Robinson trying to tell? You do know this dude has a history of harassment, assault, stalking, financial crime amongst many other crimes.

>They also lie by omission. The relentless boats of illegal migrants flooding into the UK went unreported until Farage went down to the coast and started sounding the alarm.

Got any evidence for this?

>Perhaps Putin has captured all media in Russia, I don’t care, it’s not relevant to my point.

Name me some opposition liberal, pro-west/NATO media based out of Russia.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Of course they would platform Farage… and outnumber him with Remainer wolves to smear him in repeat public humiliation and demonisation attempts. You don't know this?

Go look for BBC jihadist murder articles yourself. I’m not running around the internet for proof that the earth isn’t flat.

Tommy Robinson exposes the truth around Islamic killers and rape squads. Your regime-like attempt to discredit him with a flurry of groundless accusations is very telling.

Why the hell should I name you ‘some opposition liberal, pro-west/NATO media based out of Russia’, I haven’t made any claims around Russia’s media 🤷🏻‍♂️

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Of course they would platform Farage… and outnumber him with Remainer wolves to smear him in repeat public humiliation and demonisation attempts. You don't know this?

Yet they still kept inviting him, and they repeatedly gave Brexit campaigners tons of publicity.

>Go look for BBC jihadist murder articles yourself. I’m not running around the internet for proof that the earth isn’t flat.

What you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>Tommy Robinson exposes the truth around Islamic killers and rape squads. Your regime-like attempt to discredit him with a flurry of groundless accusations is very telling.

What "truth" is he showing that no-one else is? Independent investigations revealed instances of prominently Arabic-Islamic rape gangs.

Are you implying that Tommy Robinson has never assaulted or harassed anyone, and that all of his legal matters were made up by the state? Do you consider turning up to a journalists house in the early hours to intimidate them that?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/05/journalist-makes-police-complaint-about-tommy-robinson

Is that acceptable behaviour?

Tommy Robinson is one of the most reviled men in Britain, and has been for a long time.

>Why the hell should I name you ‘some opposition liberal, pro-west/NATO media based out of Russia’, I haven’t made any claims around Russia’s media 🤷🏻‍♂️

The point is that Russia is an actual state that persecutes media. Is right-wing, conservative, anti-western media shut down in the UK and USA?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Yet they still kept inviting him, and they repeatedly gave Brexit campaigners tons of publicity.

Yes, for the reasons I explained - to outnumber them with Remainer wolves who would smear them in repeat public humiliation and demonisation attempts. You don't know this?

What you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Yeah but you’re not a serious actor. You’re a mendacious regime bitch playing the hatchling, who actually thinks I’m going to run around finding links that prove the patently obvious and self-evident.

I no more need to provide links to BBC jihadist murder articles than I do links that prove that the earth isn’t flat. Clear?

What "truth" is he showing that no-one else is? Independent investigations revealed instances of prominently Arabic-Islamic rape gangs.

Go watch his video content, including his documentary about the mass child rape by Muslim gangs.

Are you implying that Tommy Robinson has never assaulted or harassed anyone, and that all of his legal matters were made up by the state? Do you consider turning up to a journalists house in the early hours to intimidate them that?

I don’t care whether or not he has assaulted anyone, your low-grade ad hom attempts are pathetic. All I care about is whether he has told the truth and exposed important criminal behaviour that sickos like you would rather cover up.

I will, however, applaud his confronting of mendacious Guardian propagandists, that was excellent.

Tommy Robinson is one of the most reviled men in Britain, and has been for a long time.

Yeah he’s reviled by Islamic kiddy rapists and their enablers, like you.

To be disapproved of by creatures like you is a an incredible badge of honour for any human being.

The point is that Russia is an actual state that persecutes media. Is right-wing, conservative, anti-western media shut down in the UK and USA?

Yes.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Yes, for the reasons I explained - to outnumber them with Remainer wolves who would smear them in repeat public humiliation and demonisation attempts. You don't know this?

And it completely backfired (if that was their attempt, which is completely speculative). The BBC gave tons of publicity to Brexit by doing this.

>Yeah but you’re not a serious actor. You’re a mendacious regime bitch playing the hatchling, who actually thinks I’m going to run around finding links that prove the patently obvious and self-evident.

What you again insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Who am I a "regime bitch" for? Can I call you a Russian "regime bitch"?

>I don’t care whether or not he has assaulted anyone, your low-grade ad hom attempts are pathetic. All I care about is whether he has told the truth and exposed important criminal behaviour that sickos like you would rather cover up.

You were insinuating that all of Tommy Robinsons legal issues were politically motivated.

>I will, however, applaud his confronting of mendacious Guardian propagandists, that was excellent.

So you think it should be acceptable to harass people in the middle of the night by banging on their door and intimidating them?

>Yeah he’s reviled by Islamic kiddy rapists and their enablers, like you.

How am I am "enabler" of "Islamic kiddy rapists"?

Tommy Robinson is loathed by most of the British public.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

And it completely backfired (if that was their attempt, which is completely speculative). The BBC gave tons of publicity to Brexit by doing this.

It backfired because it was an obvious, evil tactic, but the fact the BBC deployed the tactic proves that they are a relentless pusher of regime narratives, which is my point.

What you again insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Yeah but you’re not a serious actor. You’re a mendacious regime bitch playing the hatchling, who actually thinks I’m going to run around finding links that prove the patently obvious and self-evident.

I no more need to provide links to BBC jihadist murder articles than I do links that prove that the earth isn’t flat. Clear?

I hope so, or I’ll have to repeat myself again.

Who am I a "regime bitch" for? Can I call you a Russian "regime bitch"?

You are a bitch for the regime 🤷🏻‍♂️ You could try and call me a ‘Russian regime bitch’ but you’d just be a lying sack of shit, again.

I’m not ‘calling’ you a regime bitch, I’m describing you as one.

You were insinuating that all of Tommy Robinsons legal issues were politically motivated.

Don’t presume to tell me what I’m ‘insinuating’ you lying sack of shit.

So you think it should be acceptable to harass people in the middle of the night by banging on their door and intimidating them?

No, Cathy Newman, but one absolutely should confront Guardian propagandists as Tommy Robinson did.

How am I am "enabler" of "Islamic kiddy rapists"?

You’re trying to smear a man who is exposing the kiddy rapes and the cops/council members who covered it up.

Tommy Robinson is loathed by most of the British public.

No, he’s only reviled by Islamic kiddy rapists and their enablers, like you.

To be disapproved of by creatures like you is a an incredible badge of honour for any human being.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>It backfired because it was an obvious, evil tactic, but the fact the BBC deployed the tactic proves that they are a relentless pusher of regime narratives, which is my point.

Dude, Farage absolutely loved it. It was obvious early on he was (is) a capable speaker not intimidated by pushback from others. BBC knew this and still kept inviting him on.

>Yeah but you’re not a serious actor. You’re a mendacious regime bitch playing the hatchling, who actually thinks I’m going to run around finding links that prove the patently obvious and self-evident.

What you again insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>I no more need to provide links to BBC jihadist murder articles than I do links that prove that the earth isn’t flat. Clear?

What do you mean "BBC jihadist murder articles"? Them reporting on it would seem to contradict your position.

>You are a bitch for the regime 🤷🏻‍♂️ You could try and call me a ‘Russian regime bitch’ but you’d just be a lying sack of shit, again.

How am I a "regime bitch"?

>No, Cathy Newman, but one absolutely should confront Guardian propagandists as Tommy Robinson did.

So it's acceptable to harass *specific people* in the middle of the night by banging on their door and intimidating them?

>You’re trying to smear a man who is exposing the kiddy rapes and the cops/council members who covered it up.

How am I smearing him?

>No, he’s only reviled by Islamic kiddy rapists and their enablers, like you.

How am I an "Islamic kiddy rapist" enabler?

And how would you know how popular, or unpopular Tommy Robinson is here? If he's so popular, why aren't their protests in support of him? Why hasn't he weaponised his popularity in any meaningful sense?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Dude, Farage absolutely loved it…

Your guess as to how Farage felt about it is irrelevant. The point is that the BBC would outnumber patriots with Remainer wolves who would smear them in repeat public humiliation and demonisation attempts, because the BBC is a regime propaganda machine.

What you again insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Yeah but you’re not a serious actor. You’re a mendacious regime bitch playing the hatchling, who actually thinks I’m going to run around finding links that prove the patently obvious and self-evident.

I no more need to provide links to BBC jihadist murder articles than I do links that prove that the earth isn’t flat. Clear?

I hope so, or I’ll have to repeat myself again.

What do you mean "BBC jihadist murder articles"? Them reporting on it would seem to contradict your position.

Then you haven’t understood my position, because instead of paying attention you’ve just pulled some ‘position’ out of your ass and attributed it to me.

Every time you do that you reveal yourself to be a lying sack of shit. Do you realise this?

How am I a "regime bitch"?

You are a bitch for the regime 🤷🏻‍♂️ Constantly running defence for the evil behaviour of the regime with your basic-bitch bag of rhetorical tricks.

So it's acceptable to harass *specific people* in the middle of the night by banging on their door and intimidating them?

No, Cathy Newman, but one absolutely should confront Guardian propagandists as Tommy Robinson did.

How am I smearing him?

Why are you asking me? You’re the one constantly smearing him.

How am I an "Islamic kiddy rapist" enabler?

You’re trying to smear a man who is exposing the kiddy rapes and the cops/council members who covered it up.

And how would you know how popular, or unpopular Tommy Robinson is here?

I pay attention.

If he's so popular, why aren't their protests in support of him?

There are.

Why hasn't he weaponised his popularity in any meaningful sense?

He has.

If you took the time to read my replies properly instead of just impulsively farting out a response like a bot seconds after I drop a post then you wouldn’t keep asking such fucking stupid questions.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Your guess as to how Farage felt about it is irrelevant. The point is that the BBC would outnumber patriots with Remainer wolves who would smear them in repeat public humiliation and demonisation attempts, because the BBC is a regime propaganda machine.

We're all familiar with Farage. He did so many interviews and was a panelist of so many shows.

>Yeah but you’re not a serious actor. You’re a mendacious regime bitch playing the hatchling, who actually thinks I’m going to run around finding links that prove the patently obvious and self-evident.

How is it "self-evident" in the slightest? How would it be remotely evident to someone, for instance, who is not familiar with the BBC?

>I no more need to provide links to BBC jihadist murder articles than I do links that prove that the earth isn’t flat. Clear?

No. Provide evidence, fuck face. I'm not ever going to stop asking you this.

Not even sure what you mean by "BBC jihadist murder articles".

>Then you haven’t understood my position, because instead of paying attention you’ve just pulled some ‘position’ out of your ass and attributed it to me.

It's not my fault, nor responsibility for your inability to explain yourself properly.

>You are a bitch for the regime 🤷🏻‍♂️ Constantly running defence for the evil behaviour of the regime with your basic-bitch bag of rhetorical tricks.

What "regime"? What "evil behaviour"?

>No, Cathy Newman, but one absolutely should confront Guardian propagandists as Tommy Robinson did.

So it should be acceptable to harass and stalk "Guardian propagandists" in the middle of the night? That's what you're claiming?

>Why are you asking me? You’re the one constantly smearing him.

You haven't explained how I'm supposedly smearing him. Is pointing out his history of criminal behaviour, which is public record, "smearing"?

>You’re trying to smear a man who is exposing the kiddy rapes and the cops/council members who covered it up.

Many investigations did this. What specifically are you claiming he "blew the whistle on"?

>I pay attention.

I actually live here. He's reviled.

>There are.

Name them.

>He has.

How? He's not in a political party, he's never run for office, he has almost no influence whatsoever.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that you haven’t already been identified as a regime bitch playing the hatchling 🤷🏻‍♂️

You hilariously still expect to be treated with respect and have people spend their valuable time explaining the patently obvious and self-evident.

You don’t seem to understand that your only value here is to showcase the sick psychology and moronic ‘debate’ tactics of a regime bitch.

Now, I want to be fair. If there’s anyone reading this who thinks that Skavau has a remotely valid point, or has asked even one genuine question, then quote the relevant point/question and I’ll address it.

This offer naturally doesn’t extend to you, Skavau. You’ve exposed yourself as a filthy regime bitch and a lying sack of shit, and you will be treated accordingly.

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Your guess as to how Farage felt about it is irrelevant. The point is that the BBC would outnumber patriots with Remainer wolves who would smear them in repeat public humiliation and demonisation attempts, because the BBC is a regime propaganda machine.

We're all familiar with Farage. He did so many interviews and was a panelist of so many shows.

>Yeah but you’re not a serious actor. You’re a mendacious regime bitch playing the hatchling, who actually thinks I’m going to run around finding links that prove the patently obvious and self-evident.

How is it "self-evident" in the slightest? How would it be remotely evident to someone, for instance, who is not familiar with the BBC?

>I no more need to provide links to BBC jihadist murder articles than I do links that prove that the earth isn’t flat. Clear?

No. Provide evidence, fuck face. I'm not ever going to stop asking you this.

Not even sure what you mean by "BBC jihadist murder articles".

>Then you haven’t understood my position, because instead of paying attention you’ve just pulled some ‘position’ out of your ass and attributed it to me.

It's not my fault, nor responsibility for your inability to explain yourself properly.

>You are a bitch for the regime 🤷🏻‍♂️ Constantly running defence for the evil behaviour of the regime with your basic-bitch bag of rhetorical tricks.

What "regime"? What "evil behaviour"?

>No, Cathy Newman, but one absolutely should confront Guardian propagandists as Tommy Robinson did.

So it should be acceptable to harass and stalk "Guardian propagandists" in the middle of the night? That's what you're claiming?

>Why are you asking me? You’re the one constantly smearing him.

You haven't explained how I'm supposedly smearing him. Is pointing out his history of criminal behaviour, which is public record, "smearing"?

>You’re trying to smear a man who is exposing the kiddy rapes and the cops/council members who covered it up.

Many investigations did this. What specifically are you claiming he "blew the whistle on"?

>I pay attention.

I actually live here. He's reviled.

>There are.

Name them.

>He has.

How? He's not in a political party, he's never run for office, he has almost no influence whatsoever.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

If it’s true that you’re a bot, as we all suspect, just re-post your last post verbatim. Go…

reply

[–] Skavau (9434) 3 months ago

>Your guess as to how Farage felt about it is irrelevant. The point is that the BBC would outnumber patriots with Remainer wolves who would smear them in repeat public humiliation and demonisation attempts, because the BBC is a regime propaganda machine.

We're all familiar with Farage. He did so many interviews and was a panelist of so many shows.

>Yeah but you’re not a serious actor. You’re a mendacious regime bitch playing the hatchling, who actually thinks I’m going to run around finding links that prove the patently obvious and self-evident.

How is it "self-evident" in the slightest? How would it be remotely evident to someone, for instance, who is not familiar with the BBC?

>I no more need to provide links to BBC jihadist murder articles than I do links that prove that the earth isn’t flat. Clear?

No. Provide evidence, fuck face. I'm not ever going to stop asking you this.

Not even sure what you mean by "BBC jihadist murder articles".

>Then you haven’t understood my position, because instead of paying attention you’ve just pulled some ‘position’ out of your ass and attributed it to me.

It's not my fault, nor responsibility for your inability to explain yourself properly.

>You are a bitch for the regime 🤷🏻‍♂️ Constantly running defence for the evil behaviour of the regime with your basic-bitch bag of rhetorical tricks.

What "regime"? What "evil behaviour"?

>No, Cathy Newman, but one absolutely should confront Guardian propagandists as Tommy Robinson did.

So it should be acceptable to harass and stalk "Guardian propagandists" in the middle of the night? That's what you're claiming?

>Why are you asking me? You’re the one constantly smearing him.

You haven't explained how I'm supposedly smearing him. Is pointing out his history of criminal behaviour, which is public record, "smearing"?

>You’re trying to smear a man who is exposing the kiddy rapes and the cops/council members who covered it up.

Many investigations did this. What specifically are you claiming he "blew the whistle on"?

>I pay attention.

I actually live here. He's reviled.

>There are.

Name them.

>He has.

How? He's not in a political party, he's never run for office, he has almost no influence whatsoever.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Yep, thought so.

reply

[–] Ranb (7266) 3 months ago

How was Carlson forbidden from doing anything?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

Journalists are prohibited from conducting any kind of fair interview with Putin (meanwhile, regime ‘journalists’ are tasked with humanising and puffing Zelensky - their puppet)

reply

[–] Ranb (7266) 3 months ago

Are you saying that Carlson was fool enough to walk into a scripted interview designed to prop up Putin then promote it as something great?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

No 🤷🏻‍♂️

reply

[–] Ranb (7266) 3 months ago

So he did it on purpose and thought that you, personally, were stupid enough to fall for it.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 3 months ago

No. WTF are you talking about?

reply

[–] xergan (869) 3 months ago

If Putin owns the Pulitzer jury as he owns Carlson, yes.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3017) 3 months ago

Sure, why not? Trump won Person of The Year one time. And Majorie Taylor Green should win Woman Of The Year.

Sean Hannity should win Man Of The Year, Jesse Waters should win BadAss Of the Year. Just give all of the awards to Fox News anchors and those that have been on Fox.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (9720) 3 months ago

No.

Signed, million man

reply

[–] nte1igentwon (933) 3 months ago

It's funny that all you idiots are praising this craven lying piece of shit as a JOURNALIST.😂 A Pulitzer??! Fuck outta here!😂😂😂

One of the few times that Fucker told the truth was when he admitted under oath that what he does ISN'T journalism.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

Carlson doesn't matter.
He just functioned as a conduit for Putin to speak to Biden
though the US audience. I think that is a positive.
No need to act like a jerk or fly off the handle.
If you disagree, watch the interview and explain why?
I don't think you can do it, or anything aside from typing the
word fuck. You're useless and none too bright.

reply

[–] nte1igentwon (933) 3 months ago

"You're none too bright." Okay Mr. Pot. My Princeton undergrad degree says different.

Useful idiots, the lot of you.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8556) 3 months ago

That really proves it. Princeton ... famous for gays, but there's nothing wrong with that.

reply