• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tucker Carlson has the key to deconstruct neoliberals.

Slyfox696 said:
He refuted the idea it was a fact. He acknowledge there are allegations and it's still being investigated, but he refuted the claim it was a fact. Which is perfectly logical.

Ahh, that actually makes more sense. I appreciate you clarifying that. I probably won't watch this video though, since I've watched the first one (17:30 long) twice now.
Click to expand...
Ah, the supposed 'watchdog' of the American Intelligence Committee says there is no fact before the investigation was completed? Not much of a watchdog. Himes should step down to allow someone to ACTUALLY attempt to oversee the American Intelligence community.

Sidenote: I imagine you were one of those who lambasted Comey (head of the FBI) for his investigation of Hillary -- and Bill -- and the DOJ. You probably called Comey's reputation into question for his investigation while the election was ongoing. Did you also want Himes and his Senate Committee to investigate Comey?

Now you 'laud' Comey's reputation when Comey said Obama, the White, wasn't involved in the tapping of Trump Towers? Where was Flynn when he was tapped, then? We know Flynn was tapped because someone within the American Intelligence Community illegally leaked this information to the press.

Refresh me. According to the NY Times, which agency(s) brought up, three times, the possibility for a FISA Judge to warrant the tapping?

Second side note: Why isn't Himes, the head of the Senate's select Committee on American Intelligence, concerned about the possible wrongdoing by someone within the American Intelligence Community of illegally leaking a tapped conversation between an American citizen, Flynn, and a Russian diplomat?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Ah, the supposed 'watchdog' of the American Intelligence Committee says there is no fact?
Click to expand...
No he said it wasn't a fact. There's a big difference.

Not much of a watchdog, here. Himes should step down to allow someone to ACTUALLY attempt to oversee the American Intelligence community.
Click to expand...
Wait...because something may not have existed, Himes should step down? That's really stupid.

Sidenote: I imagine you were one of those who lambasted Comey (head of the FBI) for his investigation of Hillary -- and Bill -- and the DOJ. You probably called Comey's reputation into question for his investigation while the election was ongoing.
Click to expand...
You would be wrong. I have never questioned Comey's integrity and I have said repeatedly I had no problem at all when he alerted Congress they were investigating a possible link between Weiner and Clinton.

You shouldn't assume things to make an argument, it just makes the argument look downright foolish.

Now you 'laud' Comey's reputation when Comey said Obama, the White, wasn't involved in the tapping of Trump Towers?
Click to expand...
I've never not spoken highly of Comey's reputation. Why are you making things up which are not true?

Where was Flynn when he was tapped, then? We know Flynn was tapped because someone within the American Intelligence Community illegally leaked this information to the press.
Click to expand...
No, we don't know Flynn was tapped, we know the Russian Flynn was talking to was tapped.

Your position is nothing but a barrel full of false statements right now. Himes didn't say there was no fact, he said it wasn't a fact Manafort was being surveilled and he shouldn't step down because you don't understand the difference. I have never criticized Comey for doing his job and have said on numerous occasions he is considered to have a very good reputation in Washington. And we don't know Flynn was tapped, but we can be reasonably confident the Russian Flynn was talking to was tapped. And, finally, you have not presented a SINGLE piece of evidence to support your original position that Himes dodged and deflect any question, much less every question.

You position has failed from the very beginning. Would you like to retract your obviously erroneous statement about Himes dodging and deflecting?
 
Last edited:
But, I'm sure, Himes wants the investigation of Russian influence in Trump's victory to continue. Where's that proof? Should we be like Himes and call that investigation off because there ARE NO FACTS to back up that allegation even though the investigation hasn't been completed??
 
Himes' interview with Carlson should have been short, sweet and boring. Carlson would have asked his questions and Himes should have answered, every time, 'the investigation is ongoing' and leave his answer to that. You know, to transmit an attitude of open-mindedness to the investigation. Think they call that transparency.

This American thinks the American Intelligence Community has no limits and no sector of American government oversees them...surely not the Senate's select Committee on American Intelligence headed by Himes.
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
Not odd. Progressives think of themselves as liberals but they aren't not. Neoliberal fits them perfectly.
Click to expand...

A gentle correction here. Progressives or liberals think of themselves as liberal, yes, and they definitely are not. They are strict authoritarians who would punish or destroy all who do not think, behave, agree with THEM. They look to government and the courts to mandate and enforce the sort of society as THEY think it should be. Any government, leader, or person that opposes THEIR agenda or who promotes anything other than THEIR agenda is to be opposed, violently if necessary, and, if possible, destroyed.

Neoliberal or neo-liberal, on the other hand has no agreed definition. Some equate it to libertarianism (little "L") or classical liberalism that promote laizzez faire free markets and less regulation while others are closer to progressivism in their approval of authoritarian government, labor unions, and opposition to the military and big business. It gets really confusing when there is no consensus on which way it is.

But on the topic, I didn't expect to like Tucker in that time slot. I was disappointed when I first heard he would get it. But unlike O'Reilly who tends to cut people off and doesn't thoroughly air something, or unlike Hannity who shuts them down, Tucker is a master at allowing people all the rope he needs to expose the emptiness of their argument and he doesn't allow them to deflect or change the subject. And he does it without becoming angry or aggressive or combative. I find myself tuning into and staying with him more than the other two.
 
Last edited:
Slyfox, according to the NY Times, three notifications to a FISA Judge were issued in the Flynn tapping case. Two were rejected and one accepted. Just so you know, FISA rulings aren't needed to tap foreign agents...like a Russian diplomat. Why was a FISA Judges' warrant needed in this situation?
 
AlbqOwl said:
A gentle correction here. Progressives or liberals think of themselves as liberal, yes, and they definitely are not. They are strict authoritarians who would punish or destroy all who do not think, behave, agree with THEM. They look to government and the courts to mandate and enforce the sort of society as THEY think it should be. Any government, leader, or person that opposes THEIR agenda or who promotes anything other than THEIR agenda is to be opposed, violently if necessary, and, if possible, destroyed.

Neoliberal or neo-liberal, on the other hand has no agreed definition. Some equate it to libertarianism (little "L") or classical liberalism that promote laizzez faire free markets and less regulation while others are closer to progressivism in their approval of authoritarian government, labor unions, and opposition to the military and big business. It gets really confusing when there is no consensus on which way it is.

But on the topic, I didn't expect to like Tucker in that time slot. I was disappointed when I first heard he would get it. But unlike O'Reilly who tends to cut people off and doesn't thoroughly air something, or like Hannity who shuts them down, Tucker is a master at allowing people all the rope he needs to expose the emptiness of their argument and he doesn't allow them to deflect or change the subject. And he does it without becoming angry or aggressive or combative. I find myself tuning into and staying with him more than the other two.
Click to expand...
And it's one major deflect from the OP.
 
AlbqOwl said:
A gentle correction here. Progressives or liberals think of themselves as liberal, yes, and they definitely are not. They are strict authoritarians who would punish or destroy all who do not think, behave, agree with THEM. They look to government and the courts to mandate and enforce the sort of society as THEY think it should be. Any government, leader, or person that opposes THEIR agenda or who promotes anything other than THEIR agenda is to be opposed, violently if necessary, and, if possible, destroyed.
Click to expand...

Won't disagree there. It's merely a matter of a label but the description is the same.

Tucker is a master at allowing people all the rope he needs to expose the emptiness of their argument and he doesn't allow them to deflect or change the subject. And he does it without becoming angry or aggressive or combative. I find myself tuning into and staying with him more than the other two.
Click to expand...

Yep...I like how he sticks with one question and doesn't allow non-answers to pass. I think he also has a sense of humor so he's more likely to laugh at the absurdity of it than to get all huffy, which really works well.
 
Fishking said:
I've watch a few segments of his show on youtube and noticed that he's one of the few interviewers that has actually stuck to a very basic formula that deconstructs most progressives. He will ask a very simple question, that he knows they will not answer, and just sticks with it. When they don't answer it, he brings it back again, and again, and again which serves to highlight the dishonesty of the progressive position. Most interviewers will ask a question and then let the person give a non-answer and then move on. That makes the entire interview useless.

It's always fun to watch and I love the look he gives. He has the "What? I'm so confused look, please explain to me this very simple thing. So hard!" Here he shows up a pro-Planned Parenthood lady by her never answering the question.

Click to expand...


Perhaps he learned the technique from the master...

 
Andalublue said:
Perhaps he learned the technique from the master...

Click to expand...


What was amazing. I love this type of interviewing. I don't know why it's not done more. Our media seems to be 100% fine with letting non-answers go and move on.
 
cabse5 said:
But, I'm sure, Himes wants the investigation of Russian influence in Trump's victory to continue. Where's that proof? Should we be like Himes and call that investigation off because there ARE NO FACTS to back up that allegation even though the investigation hasn't been completed??
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question and are now trying to play politics. I'm not here in this conversation for the politics, I'm here to address the facts. I'll remind you again what I want from you:

And, finally, you have not presented a SINGLE piece of evidence to support your original position that Himes dodged and deflect any question, much less every question.

You position has failed from the very beginning. Would you like to retract your obviously erroneous statement about Himes dodging and deflecting?
 
Fishking said:
What was amazing. I love this type of interviewing. I don't know why it's not done more. Our media seems to be 100% fine with letting non-answers go and move on.
Click to expand...
If media basically has the same ideology as the interviewee, the media tends to let non-answers slide. If media basically doesn't have the same ideology as the interviewee, media tends to ask and ask (to the point of making things up). I don't have a problem with asking and asking. I have a problem with making things up if the answers aren't the ones the media is looking for

Our American media is in sad shape, right now. It doesn't fulfill its basic purpose which is:keep the public informed. Instead, it keeps the public brainwashed.
Conservative or liberal, both ideological bents of the media are at fault to the detriment of the American public.
 
Slyfox696 said:
You didn't answer my question and are now trying to play politics. I'm not here in this conversation for the politics, I'm here to address the facts. I'll remind you again what I want from you:

And, finally, you have not presented a SINGLE piece of evidence to support your original position that Himes dodged and deflect any question, much less every question.

You position has failed from the very beginning. Would you like to retract your obviously erroneous statement about Himes dodging and deflecting?
Click to expand...
No. It's obvious he dodged and deflected. Revisit the You-Tube interview between Himes and Carlson in the OP.
 
Let me put this question to you, again, Slyfox: Since a FISA Warrant is not necessary to tap foreign officials of the US, why was, according to the NY Times, a FISA Judge petitioned 3 times before permission granted to tap conversations between the Russian diplomat and Flynn?
 
cabse5 said:
No. It's obvious he dodged and deflected.
Click to expand...
If that is true, you should be able to give at least one example. You haven't given a single example and I've given multiple examples where he directly answered the question asked.

How could he have dodged and deflected every question if I've given you direct evidence of him directly answering questions? And when are you going to provide a single example where he didn't directly answer a question?

Your position does not match reality.
 
Slyfox696 said:
If that is true, you should be able to give at least one example. You haven't given a single example and I've given multiple examples where he directly answered the question asked.

How could he have dodged and deflected every question if I've given you direct evidence of him directly answering questions? And when are you going to provide a single example where he didn't directly answer a question?

Your position does not match reality.
Click to expand...

My posts numbered 34, 36 and 41 all show instances of Himes dodging and deflecting. Those instances are not up to your standards? They are up to the standards of a qualified investigatory journalist like Carlson, though.
 
cabse5 said:
My posts numbered 34, 36 and 41 all show instances of Himes dodging and deflecting.
Click to expand...
My posts in 35, 40 and 43 prove you wrong. You can't claim instances of dodging and then ignore the fact he directly answered the question.

Those instances are not up to your standards?
Click to expand...
Since you bring up examples in which he directly answered the question...no, they are not up to any honest standards. You can't claim someone dodged and deflected by presenting examples where the person directly answered the question.

Your post is false. Try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom