Tucker Carlson: The Deep State Removed Nixon, The Most Popular President Ever, To Cover Up CIA's Murder Of JFK!

[Reagan]

RFK, Jr says the same thing concerning the CIA!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[UT alum]

Tucker Carlson. The same man who detested Trump privately but was a minion in public (where he was paid a princely sum). Yeah, he’s gonna give us the truth.  Nixon’s dirty tricksters, led by Donald Segretti chased Muskie off, then sabotaged Sargent Shriver, effectively killing any chance McGovern had of even coming close.  Nixon was going to fight until Barry Goldwater went to the White House and told Nixon he could not get 60 votes in the Senate to avoid conviction.  Tucker Carlson never tells the truth. He manipulates opinions and treats them like facts. Where is he now, by the way?

[baddog]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Tucker Carlson. The same man who detested Trump privately but was a minion in public (where he was paid a princely sum). Yeah, he’s gonna give us the truth.  Nixon’s dirty tricksters, led by Donald Segretti chased Muskie off, then sabotaged Sargent Shriver, effectively killing any chance McGovern had of even coming close.  Nixon was going to fight until Barry Goldwater went to the White House and told Nixon he could not get 60 votes in the Senate to avoid conviction.  Tucker Carlson never tells the truth. He manipulates opinions and treats them like facts. Where is he now, by the way?

Just curious, which truths do you follow?

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Tucker Carlson. The same man who detested Trump privately but was a minion in public (where he was paid a princely sum). Yeah, he’s gonna give us the truth.  Nixon’s dirty tricksters, led by Donald Segretti chased Muskie off, then sabotaged Sargent Shriver, effectively killing any chance McGovern had of even coming close.  Nixon was going to fight until Barry Goldwater went to the White House and told Nixon he could not get 60 votes in the Senate to avoid conviction.  Tucker Carlson never tells the truth. He manipulates opinions and treats them like facts. Where is he now, by the way?

He's probably celebrating the 264 million views his Trump interview received, or the 12.9 million views of his last interview.....or anticipating the number of views he gets interviewing the man who claims he had sex with Obama (after one hour, already at 4.3 million views. 

It's OK you don't like Tucker, but insulting the man personally instead of addressing the subject of his interviews is typically what the extreme left does. 

I've watched all of his interviews.....he's a journalist and ask questions......verus debating his guest like CNN......I have always thought journalist ask questions and political hacks posing as journalist debate their guest......am I wrong? Should Journalist argue points with peple they are interviewing? 

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Just curious, which truths do you follow?

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

He's probably celebrating the 264 million views his Trump interview received, or the 12.9 million views of his last interview.....or anticipating the number of views he gets interviewing the man who claims he had sex with Obama (after one hour, already at 4.3 million views. 

It's OK you don't like Tucker, but insulting the man personally instead of addressing the subject of his interviews is typically what the extreme left does. 

I've watched all of his interviews.....he's a journalist and ask questions......verus debating his guest like CNN......I have always thought journalist ask questions and political hacks posing as journalist debate their guest......am I wrong? Should Journalist argue points with peple they are interviewing? 

What I read on Reagan’s post was a screed, not journalism. How, might I ask, did I insult him? Sounds kind of snowflakey to me.

[baddog]

17 minutes ago, UT alum said:

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain

A Mark Twain quote…. the writer of Huckleberry Finn. Thought you leftys banned that book for racial overtones, but you’ll quote him to make a point. The hypocrisy of the left is alive and well. 

[thetragichippy]

18 hours ago, UT alum said:

Tucker Carlson never tells the truth.

If I claimed you never told the truth, would you consider that a compliment or insult? 

[Big girl]

20 hours ago, UT alum said:

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain

I cannot believe he is trying to rewrite history. Nixon apologized for what he did which means the allegations were true

[UT alum]

38 minutes ago, Big girl said:

I cannot believe he is trying to rewrite history. Nixon apologized for what he did which means the allegations were true

Now, Big Girl, you know the right’s objective is to rewrite history.  Slavery provided job skill training? PLEASE!!!

[UT alum]

21 hours ago, baddog said:

A Mark Twain quote…. the writer of Huckleberry Finn. Thought you leftys banned that book for racial overtones, but you’ll quote him to make a point. The hypocrisy of the left is alive and well. 

You’re out of your mind. Mark Twain was called the father of American literature by William Faulkner.  Liberals don’t ban books, either.  Conservatives do. Some advocated for a change of the offensive words used, and I think that’s BS.  You ever read Uncle Tom’s Cabin? History must be taken in context, and taught in context.  That’s why the right wants to obliterate it. Or any other authoritarian form of leadership for that matter.

[UT alum]

5 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

If I claimed you never told the truth, would you consider that a compliment or insult? 

I call it hyperbole.

[LumRaiderFan]

3 minutes ago, UT alum said:

You’re out of your mind. Mark Twain was called the father of American literature by William Faulkner.  Liberals don’t ban books, either.  Conservatives do. Some advocated for a change of the offensive words used, and I think that’s BS.  You ever read Uncle Tom’s Cabin? History must be taken in context, and taught in context.  That’s why the right wants to obliterate it. Or any other authoritarian form of leadership for that matter.

They do like to tear statues down.

[UT alum]

1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:

They do like to tear statues down.

Danged straight.  Put them in a museum, teach the history of what they’ve done, but don’t honor sworn (and defeated) enemies of the US.

[LumRaiderFan]

16 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Danged straight.  Put them in a museum, teach the history of what they’ve done, but don’t honor sworn (and defeated) enemies of the US.

Nope, your side doesn't want that either.

[UT alum]

Just now, LumRaiderFan said:

Nope, your side doesn't want that either.

Yes, some of us do. Your side wants to lionize them and sanitize what they did and stood for. Our side does not want history to forget.

[baddog]

3 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Yes, some of us do. Your side wants to lionize them and sanitize what they did and stood for. Our side does not want history to forget.

And you’re the one who says history should be taught in context. You talk out both sides of your mouth.

[LumRaiderFan]

4 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Yes, some of us do. Your side wants to lionize them and sanitize what they did and stood for. Our side does not want history to forget.

These guys were all from your side, don't forget that.

Even in modern times who was it that was turning dogs out on minorities and standing on steps preventing entry, it wasn't Republicans.

[5GallonBucket]

Oh what a tangle web they weave

[UT alum]

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

These guys were all from your side, don't forget that.

Even in modern times who was it that was turning dogs out on minorities and standing on steps preventing entry, it wasn't Republicans.

That’s because there were no Republicans because of what your party did to reconstruction. Carpetbaggers weren’t Democrats.  Again, an attempt to rewrite history without analyzing any context. The modern Democratic Party got the Civil Rights act passed and the Voting Rights act passed. Again, twisting history to fit your narrative is in the conservative playbook now.

[LumRaiderFan]

17 minutes ago, UT alum said:

That’s because there were no Republicans because of what your party did to reconstruction. Carpetbaggers weren’t Democrats.  Again, an attempt to rewrite history without analyzing any context. The modern Democratic Party got the Civil Rights act passed and the Voting Rights act passed. Again, twisting history to fit your narrative is in the conservative playbook now.

lol, I could see this bogus answer coming a mile away so it's not surprising.

Dixiecrats, right?   lol

Spin it how you want, democrats are the party of racism...period.

Always have been, always will be.

You really should look at the numbers on who voted for and against the Civil Rights Act AND who was most adamantly opposed to it.  Your modern democrat party had one thing in mind...votes.

[UT alum]

30 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

lol, I could see this bogus answer coming a mile away so it's not surprising.

Dixiecrats, right?   lol

Spin it how you want, democrats are the party of racism...period.

Always have been, always will be.

You really should look at the numbers on who voted for and against the Civil Rights Act AND who was most adamantly opposed to it.  Your modern democrat party had one thing in mind...votes.

 

[UT alum]

34 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

lol, I could see this bogus answer coming a mile away so it's not surprising.

Dixiecrats, right?   lol

Spin it how you want, democrats are the party of racism...period.

Always have been, always will be.

You really should look at the numbers on who voted for and against the Civil Rights Act AND who was most adamantly opposed to it.  Your modern democrat party had one thing in mind...votes.

Every political party in the history of our country has one thing in mind - votes. It’s a democratic system. No votes, no power. You can crow about your sanctimonious claim of Republican purity when it comes to race. Ever hear of the southern strategy?  Also, what party was in control of the house, senate, and presidency when the civil rights legislation was passed. If you don’t know, it was Democrats. Now, if we’re such a party of racists, how could bills like that even get to the floor for a vote?  Your argument is weak as pond water.

[LumRaiderFan]

13 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Every political party in the history of our country has one thing in mind - votes. It’s a democratic system. No votes, no power. You can crow about your sanctimonious claim of Republican purity when it comes to race. Ever hear of the southern strategy?  Also, what party was in control of the house, senate, and presidency when the civil rights legislation was passed. If you don’t know, it was Democrats. Now, if we’re such a party of racists, how could bills like that even get to the floor for a vote?  Your argument is weak as pond water.

Have you heard me crowing about Republican purity, absolutely not, I don’t care for them much either.  Stop making stuff up out of thin air.

You are the one defending a racist, corrupt party, not me.

I see you won’t bother to look into the voting percentages and pushback on the Civil Rights Act.  

[UT alum]

23 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Have you heard me crowing about Republican purity, absolutely not, I don’t care for them much either.  Stop making stuff up out of thin air.

You are the one defending a racist, corrupt party, not me.

I see you won’t bother to look into the voting percentages and pushback on the Civil Rights Act.  

I know the history.  A Democratic President’s signature is on the bills.  The Voting Rights Act passed July 9, 1965 by a 333-85 vote. Democrats 221-61 (18% against), Republicans 112-24 (20% against).  Therefore, it passed without needing any Republican votes.  The Voting Rights Act passed the house August 9, 1965 by a vote of 328-74.  Democrats