Senate Majority Leader Schumer Demands That FOX Yank Tucker Carlson's Microphone

[PirateMk1]

In a brazen act of defiance to the U.S. Constitution and Free Speech, Chuck Schumer demanded that Tucker Carlson's show be censored:

"These lies continue tonight, Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight, now that he’s seen how he has perverted and slimed the truth, and from letting him go on again and again and again. Not because their views deserve such opprobrium, but because our democracy depends on it.”



LOL.

So Chuckie wants to suspend First Amendment rights to people he doesn't agree with. The message probably resonates with most dems and probably some republicans, too.

Thankfully, the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment protects ALL citizens equally. Congress members cannot pick and choose who gets to speak freely and who doesn't.

Chuck never read the Constitution, it seems. Or maybe he did but doesn't really understand it.

Well considering the FBI was just caught altering evidence in the J6 trials, I think he is worried that he is about to be implicated in something he may have done.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Unlike tucker, faux and "the cult".......

......what Schumer said isn't meant to trigger people and isn't a danger to our democracy.

That mob's just involved in a little peaceful chaos.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

True but just the opposite is happening. I saw an article today saying Tucker's show is getting record breaking numbers of viewers in the last couple days.

Yes, his viewers love for him to lie to them so long as he tells them what they want to hear. He has said as much in private conversations.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Well considering the FBI was just caught altering evidence in the J6 trials, I think he is worried that he is about to be implicated in something he may have done.

No, they were not.

Stop spewing bullshit.

 

[BirdinHand]

Lol, do you have any opinions of your own to share this morning or just endless questions for no apparent reason.

Oh, my questions have reason behind them. I'm sorry you can't see that.

 

[PirateMk1]

No, they were not.

Stop spewing bullshit.

Care to try again?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Regardless, Schumer want to silence a person with a differing point of view. When it comes to politics, should a leader in one party decide what a person should say of the other party? I never watch late night political talk shows as I consider everyone of them propaganda spiels who are trying to enhance their viewership to vote the way they want.

I think for whatever reason, valid or purely political, having an elected leader of one party espousing to take off the air a commentator, a political talk show host who presents the opposing views of that elected leader is treading in dangerous waters. Are we headed toward another passage of the alien and sedition acts? Where those in power of government try to regulate, control speech that goes against them or their political viewpoints?

He isn't silencing anybody. He is suggesting that the owner of Faux remove an employee who is a known liar. As the owner of the company, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for Murdoch to do so.

There is a VAST difference between a differing opinion and shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. What Faux did was exactly that. The took the lie told by the orange anus and put it on TV. They were the man with a megaphone in a theatre shouting "fire" and their actions created issues that got people killed.

Stop defending that.

MAGA is a terrorist group led by an orange traitor.

Care to try again?

That isn't evidence of anything.

Nice try though.

 

[it's just me]

If enough people turn off the faux and don't buy things from their advertisers when possible, it will stop.

The left doesn't have enough people.

 

[Helix]

The left doesn't have enough people.

You can turn off the faux, too. I did.

 

[it's just me]

You can turn off the faux, too. I did.

I don't want to.

 

[Helix]

I don't want to.

Only you can make you want to.

 

[SkyChief]

I wish people would inform themselves about free speech before making stupid claims about it.

"Congress shall make no law..."

Tell me, where is Schumer pushing for a speech-restricting law here?

Who said anything about a "speech-restricting law" nonsense?

You made that shit up. What a lame straw-man you've propped up.

Chuck Schumer (mis)used his political power to get a cable talk show to silence a talk-show host whom he disagrees with. Nobody claimed he was trying to change the Law.

That's right. He's not.

So your attempt to make this a freedom of speech issue is either misguided or dishonest. Probably a heaping helping of both.

Oh, It's definitely a freedom of speech issue. It's a textbook Freedom of speech issue.

 

[Rexedgar]

Who said anything about a "speech-restricting law" nonsense?

You made that shit up. What a lame straw-man you've propped up.

Chuck Schumer (mis)used his political power to get a cable talk show to silence a talk-show host whom he disagrees with. Nobody claimed he was trying to change the Law.

Changed your tune from the OP.

Yesterday it was: In a brazen act of defiance to the U.S. Constitution and Free Speech, Chuck Schumer demanded that Tucker Carlson's show be censored:

Oh, It's definitely a freedom of speech issue. It's a textbook Freedom of speech issue.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Who said anything about a "speech-restricting law" nonsense?

The US Constitution says that. You called this a "brazen defiance of the US Constitution". So now you agree that it's not?

Oh, It's definitely a freedom of speech issue. It's a textbook Freedom of speech issue.

If you're using the definition that comes from the US Constitution, which you strongly implied, then no it's not.

 

[Galactic Spin]

In a brazen act of defiance to the U.S. Constitution and Free Speech, Chuck Schumer demanded that Tucker Carlson's show be censored

This is neither of those things. This is just manufactured, right wing melodrama.

 

[SkyChief]

The US Constitution says that. You called this a "brazen defiance of the US Constitution". So now you agree that it's not?

You asked the question:

Tell me, where is Schumer pushing for a speech-restricting law here?

Nobody SAID that Schumer is "pushing" for a speech-restricting law. You fabricated a position which does not even exist. (that's a straw-man)

Schumer knows damn well what he did was wrong (to pressure a talk-show host to be silenced) inside the halls of Congress (which is where he delivered his prepared statement).

If the tables were reversed, and some republican Congress member had publicly pressured for a leftie talk-show host to be silenced, the left would (rightfully) throw fits.

The issue is WHERE Schumer delivered his prepared statement. If he had said exactly the same words to Rupert Murdoch at a dinner party, or during a round of golf, or even in a private e-mail, then it would be fine. The fact that he said it in the Capitol is the reason why Schumer should be censured.

Schumer deliberately misused his position of power to publicly pressure the media exec(Murdoch) to silence Carlson.

 

[Binary_Digit]

You asked the question:


Nobody SAID that Schumer is "pushing" for a speech-restricting law. You fabricated a position which does not even exist. (that's a straw-man)

Schumer knows damn well what he did was wrong (to pressure a talk-show host to be silenced) inside the halls of Congress (which is where he delivered his prepared statement).

If the tables were reversed, and some republican Congress member had publicly pressured for a leftie talk-show host to be silenced, the left would (rightfully) throw fits.

The issue is WHERE Schumer delivered his prepared statement. If he had said exactly the same words to Rupert Murdoch at a dinner party, or during a round of golf, or even in a private e-mail, then it would be fine. The fact that he said it in the Capitol is the reason why Schumer should be censured.

Schumer deliberately misused his position of power to publicly pressure the media exec(Murdoch) to silence Carlson.

Congress shall make no law...

If you're going to invoke the US Constitution, it's prudent to first understand what it does and does not say, eh?

 

[Perotista]

Not at all. But those who are supposedly offering the news have a duty to ensure their positions are bolstered by facts and evidence--Tucker lies on television for profit--he said so himself. Tucker hates Trump and knows the election wasn't stolen, has known it from the beginning. I would hope that anyone on the left who would do so much to disinform the public for cash would also be held accountable. Fortunately, most talking heads aren't that extreme--on the right and on the left.

This really isn't a partisan issue. Republicans should also be very upset that they were led to believe Tucker's lies. I don't know why they aren't--other than tribalism--and that's not good for our country either.

I don’t consider any of these late-night political talk show host as news reporters. They’re not reporting the news, they spindle, mutilate, distort and down right lie to try to entice the viewer to vote for the respective party they belong to. They’re class A-1 political propagandist. Most would make Joseph Goebbels proud. I’ve never considered any of them news reporters. The news on cable begins after their morning talk show and ends before their nightly lineup of talk shows.

This is where we have our difference, you look at the political talks shows as reporting the news, I look at them as non-news, political propaganda. Every political talk show host has a political agenda. They want to make their party look as good as possible, the good guys, the other party as the most evil scumbags on the face of the earth if not the universe.

 

[eohrnberger]

"Senate Majority Leader Schumer Demands That FOX Yank Tucker Carlson's Microphone"
Well, well, well, look who's first in line when it comes to censoring that which he doesn't like.
Why is it that it is the left who is always first in line for tyranny, totalitarianism and censorship when their ideology is challenged?

Yet again, accusations of tyranny, totalitarianism and censorship which the left accuses of others is only that which they themselves are guilty of.

 

[Galactic Spin]

"Senate Majority Leader Schumer Demands That FOX Yank Tucker Carlson's Microphone"
Well, well, well, look who's first in line when it comes to censoring that which he doesn't like.
Why is it that it is the left who is always first in line for tyranny, totalitarianism and censorship when their ideology is challenged?

Yet again, accusations of tyranny, totalitarianism and censorship which the left accuses of others is only that which they themselves are guilty of.

That is not any of those things, and you apparently don't know what any of those words mean

 

[JRTurner]

I don’t consider any of these late-night political talk show host as news reporters. They’re not reporting the news, they spindle, mutilate, distort and down right lie to try to entice the viewer to vote for the respective party they belong to. They’re class A-1 political propagandist. Most would make Joseph Goebbels proud. I’ve never considered any of them news reporters. The news on cable begins after their morning talk show and ends before their nightly lineup of talk shows.

This is where we have our difference, you look at the political talks shows as reporting the news, I look at them as non-news, political propaganda. Every political talk show host has a political agenda. They want to make their party look as good as possible, the good guys, the other party as the most evil scumbags on the face of the earth if not the universe.

I don't watch them either, so you're preaching to the choir here. However, most of America who does watch that stuff is walking away believing lies and it's annoying to try to have a conversation with them when you see they're parroting what comes out of Tucker Carlson's mouth, because even Tucker knows it's a lie--he just dupes so many people. I feel really bad for them. It's embarrassing to morally stand up for what you think is right and defend someone, only to find out that someone has been lying to you and manipulating you just to get rich. That's what is destroying this country right now. We either stand up and say no more, or just let our fellow citizens continue to be bamboozled.

 

[Perotista]

Pelosi disallowed those who were under investigation from participating in the investigation. That makes sense to me.

Whether Pelosi was right, wrong or indifferent, it was very bad optics. Most folks aren’t political junkies and don’t follow politics very closely. Some don’t follow politics at all. But for 58% of America, denying the minority their choice of committee members made the 1-6 committee look bias. But I don’t think that mattered much, not very many paid attention to it. The longer the 1-6 went on, the less interest in it. Basically, just Democrats and some anti-Trumpers paid a lot of attention to it. Today, it’s ancient history. Few care outside of avid anti-Trumpers who want Trump in jail.

Today, 1-6 committee is moot. My opinion is what happened during 1-6 should have stayed in the legal arena, but Pelosi and company brought it into the political arena. Made it political when it should have been all about the law.

 

[Galactic Spin]

But for 58% of America, denying the minority their choice of committee members made the 1-6 committee look bias.

Doing the right thing was more important.

 

[JRTurner]

Whether Pelosi was right, wrong or indifferent, it was very bad optics. Most folks aren’t political junkies and don’t follow politics very closely. Some don’t follow politics at all. But for 58% of America, denying the minority their choice of committee members made the 1-6 committee look bias. But I don’t think that mattered much, not very many paid attention to it. The longer the 1-6 went on, the less interest in it. Basically, just Democrats and some anti-Trumpers paid a lot of attention to it. Today, it’s ancient history. Few care outside of avid anti-Trumpers who want Trump in jail.

Today, 1-6 committee is moot. My opinion is what happened during 1-6 should have stayed in the legal arena, but Pelosi and company brought it into the political arena. Made it political when it should have been all about the law.

If it's so far behind us, why is Tucker Carlson bringing it up every night?

 

[Galactic Spin]

If it's so far behind us, why is Tucker Carlson bringing it up every night?

Because the freedom caucus is his BFF, and they were part andparcel of the insurrection. First the gained control of McCarthy, then they gave him the order to do this.