Corrupt, partisan NSA caught spying to leak Tucker Carlson messages, to silence him

Trumpet said:
You are getting wackier by the day, maybe you ought to take your meds.
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm a semi-literate moron who can't follow plain English conversations.

giphy.gif
 
BidenPresident said:
duhhhh lib bad duhhhh
Click to expand...

Step 1: Lash out with a bunch of whiny passive-aggressive insults.

Step 2: Darth Omar laughs at this fake grade school stupidity.

Step 3: Act like HE'S the one mindlessly sneering at the other side for being the other side (what only YOU are doing).

Lame.png

That's not phony or childish at all. :laugh:
 
BidenPresident said:
I never read links.
Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding. I think we're zeroing in on the problem. I'll take "the left's pathological aversion to reading for $500."

giphy.webp


BidenPresident said:
Just post something I said that is false which you claim to have refuted. I asked you 23 times and you did not do it.
Click to expand...

Already done, over and over. You are literally too stupid to do anything but talk right past it and demand examples the moment it is posted. :dunno:
 
Arminius said:


You're using the utterly unhinged and discredited tabloid trash propaganda mill Slate, which was proven to be intentionally lying on all of these hoaxes...to smear the guy who turned out to be right on them all, as the non-journalist? :rofl2:

-

Facts matter. Good luck with that. :cool:
Click to expand...
So you are claiming that lawyers for Fox and Tucker Carlson never claimed in court that he was not a journalist and no reasonable viewer would take him seriously?
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9

Or perhaps you would like the actual court ruling
This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.
Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes.
Click to expand...

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/

"Events with a single eyewitness are reported with attribution. Events with two or more independent eyewitnesses may be reported as fact. Controversial facts are reported with attribution."

Journalism ethics and standards

Do you ever get tired of "correcting" people who turn around and prove you wrong at every turn? :awesome:
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you would think an eyewitness is the same thing as an anonymous source. If 2 eyewitnesses go on the record and say they saw something that is not the same thing as 2 anonymous sources saying they saw something. No one with a modicum of intelligence would say they are the same thing. With anonymous sources, there is no way for the reader/viewer to judge the motives of the source. That is why there needs to be an editor that reviews the facts and confirms them when it comes to an actual reporter using anonymous sources.



Oh, so you already KNEW the industry standard was two sources before pretending that that wasn't the officially recognized standard. Good to know everything you said in the previous statement was dishonest hair-splitting. :cool:
Click to expand...
The one splitting hairs is you since you failed to include the rest of the standards.

Reporters are expected to be as accurate as possible given the time allotted to story preparation and the space available and to seek reliable sources.
Independent fact-checking by another employee of the publisher is desirable.

Hmm.. reporters are expected to as accurate as possible but Fox argues in court that Tucker Carlson is "not stating actual facts." It makes one wonder if you are a reasonable viewer.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
So you are claiming that lawyers for Fox and Tucker Carlson never claimed in court that he was not a journalist and no reasonable viewer would take him seriously?
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9

Or perhaps you would like the actual court ruling

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/

It's interesting that you would think an eyewitness is the same thing as an anonymous source. If 2 eyewitnesses go on the record and say they saw something that is not the same thing as 2 anonymous sources saying they saw something. No one with a modicum of intelligence would say they are the same thing. With anonymous sources, there is no way for the reader/viewer to judge the motives of the source. That is why there needs to be an editor that reviews the facts and confirms them when it comes to an actual reporter using anonymous sources.



The one splitting hairs is you since you failed to include the rest of the standards.

Reporters are expected to be as accurate as possible given the time allotted to story preparation and the space available and to seek reliable sources.
Independent fact-checking by another employee of the publisher is desirable.

Hmm.. reporters are expected to as accurate as possible but Fox argues in court that Tucker Carlson is "not stating actual facts." It makes one wonder if you are a reasonable viewer.
Click to expand...
I guess the word SARCASSM totally eludes you. :laugh: Tucker makes great use of SARCASSM and it drive Lefties further into insanity. Tucker is an opinion host not a reporter. I understand outfits like CNN don't make a difference but Fox does.
 
ExpressLane said:
I guess the word SARCASSM totally eludes you. :laugh: Tucker makes great use of SARCASSM and it drive Lefties further into insanity. Tucker is an opinion host not a reporter. I understand outfits like CNN don't make a difference but Fox does.
Click to expand...

I guess you understand that sarcasm is NOT fact. Since he is not a reporter and we are not to take what he says as fact how can we take what he says as fact when he makes a claim about an anonymous source?

Since Fox says not reasonable viewer should take what he says as fact then when Tucker claims the NSA is spying on him we should NOT take that as fact. OK. Now you only need to get Arminus to agree with you on that.
 
Arminius said:
Two different whistleblowers within the NSA apparently went to Tucker Carlson with irrefutable proof that the NSA is spying on his private conversations in an attempt to illegally leak anything damaging they can find to destroy his life and silence him.....
Click to expand...


Ummm....https://theweek.com/fox-news/1002110/nsa-says-tucker-carlson-has-never-been-an-intelligence-target
The National Security Agency called Tucker Carlson's claim that it is spying on him "untrue," but the Fox News host is sticking to his story, doubling down on the allegations during his Tuesday night show.

On Monday, Carlson maintained that a whistleblower contacted him and said the NSA is "monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air." The whistleblower, he alleged, "repeated back to us information about a story we are working on that could have only come directly from my texts and emails. There's no other possible source for that information. Period." This is "definitely" happening, Carlson added, claiming that he's been targeted for "political reasons."

In response, the NSA tweeted on Tuesday night that this was "untrue" and Carlson "has never been an intelligence target of the agency and the NSA has never had any plans to try to take his program off the air." The NSA clarified that it has a "foreign intelligence mission. We target foreign powers to generate insights on foreign activities that could harm the United States. With limited exceptions (e.g. an emergency), NSA may not target a U.S. citizen without a court order that explicitly authorizes the targeting."
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Ummm....https://theweek.com/fox-news/1002110/nsa-says-tucker-carlson-has-never-been-an-intelligence-target
The National Security Agency called Tucker Carlson's claim that it is spying on him "untrue," but the Fox News host is sticking to his story, doubling down on the allegations during his Tuesday night show.

On Monday, Carlson maintained that a whistleblower contacted him and said the NSA is "monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air." The whistleblower, he alleged, "repeated back to us information about a story we are working on that could have only come directly from my texts and emails. There's no other possible source for that information. Period." This is "definitely" happening, Carlson added, claiming that he's been targeted for "political reasons."

In response, the NSA tweeted on Tuesday night that this was "untrue" and Carlson "has never been an intelligence target of the agency and the NSA has never had any plans to try to take his program off the air." The NSA clarified that it has a "foreign intelligence mission. We target foreign powers to generate insights on foreign activities that could harm the United States. With limited exceptions (e.g. an emergency), NSA may not target a U.S. citizen without a court order that explicitly authorizes the targeting."
Click to expand...

I'm guessing someone guessed Tucker Carlson's password - "pencil"? I doubt he would go so far as to use "RW Stooge" as his password but maybe he did.

So with someone having hacked Tucker's email, he is now trying to do damage control before Wikileaks releases all his emails. He is also trying to blame the leak on the deep state as opposed to his own stupidity in password choice.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I'm guessing someone guessed Tucker Carlson's password - "pencil"? I doubt he would go so far as to use "RW Stooge" as his password but maybe he did.

So with someone having hacked Tucker's email, he is now trying to do damage control before Wikileaks releases all his emails. He is also trying to blame the leak on the deep state as opposed to his own stupidity in password choice.
Click to expand...

LOL That would be deliciously ironic....especially if there's a juicy sex scandal involved where he was committing adultery. His wife of 30 years and four kids won't be impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top