Half of the time, or possibly more often, Tucker is completely wrong. Like in the case of Brazil.
You don't get to choose, Danny.Half of the time, or possibly more often, Tucker is completely wrong. Like in the case of Brazil.
Of course I get to choose. I do not believe in your strategy.You don't get to choose, Danny.
Of course he gets to choose.
I don't agree. Danny either has Fucker Carlson as a hero 100% of the time or not at all. He can't choose which particular silly rant suits him at any given moment.Of course he gets to choose.
Everyone is allowed to exercise their judgment on this.
Estimating " Half of the time, or possibly more often, Tucker is completely wrong. " seems about right.
Of the remaining half, he is "mostly wrong" the vast majority of it.
Are you a character in a cartoon?I don't agree. Danny either has Fucker Carlson as a hero 100% of the time or not at all. He can't choose which particular silly rant suits him at any given moment.
Even if he is right 50% that leaves 50% of time where he's bullshitting.I don't agree. Danny either has Fucker Carlson as a hero 100% of the time or not at all. He can't choose which particular silly rant suits him at any given moment.
It means that you have to critically evaluate what he says. Something Mandy by his own admission is incapable of.Even if he is right 50% that leaves 50% of time where he's bullshitting.
Which just means he is totally untrustworthy as a source.
Or flip a coin and get the same chance of getting good information.It means that you have to critically evaluate what he says. Something Mandy by his own admission is incapable of.
I thought you were capable of critical evaluation. I was wrong.Or flip a coin and get the same chance of getting good information.
Given his history on here what would lead you to believe that?I thought you were capable of critical evaluation. I was wrong.
Scriptores licentiaGiven his history on here what would lead you to believe that?
Half the time? I guess you really do have conservative roots.Half of the time Tucker is completely out to lunch, or worse. His recent show about South Africa is a good example of that.
You argued that Carlson is no more accurate a source than a coin flip.I thought you were capable of critical evaluation. I was wrong.
I can think of no other solution than to ask you and Mandy to ignore my posts, as I regularly posts articles authored by authors I do not always agree with.
It is ridiculous to expect me to only post articles by authors whom I agree with unconditionally and unfailingly, or as Mandy expresses it, are my heroes.
'' Fox News argued that Carlson "cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect," the ruling said. ''You argued that Carlson is no more accurate a source than a coin flip.
Fox has argued that Carlson is just commentary and not news or fact based reporting.
So why would you use him as a source?