blowhards and the ever-popular double standard.
I'm watching Tucker Carlson's new show on MSNBC. It's not bad, and by that I mean it's just like all the rest: droll, aims low, overly simplistic and about as deep as a street puddle.
They're hashing over the Michael Jackson verdict and ol' Tucker is doing what talk show hosts do too often when discussing a controversial topic such: arguing on emotion and gray areas and passing them off as fact.
It's interesting to me that, after every conservative talk show host went apeshit over Newsweek running a story based on faulty information are now blasting the jury for not convicting the King of Pepsi.
THink about it. Newsweek ran a story that, let's be fair, is entirely plausible, (and we're now learning of KOran abuse (which is a stupid, stupid thing to worry about in my view) but in the end was false. And the conservatives went nuts. They called for retractions. The White House began pretending they were the editorial board.
And now, Tucker Carlson is bitching up a blue streak over the a jury for not convicting based soley on the "where there's smoke there's fire" charge. It's a cheap ploy to fire up people. It's sort of a dirty trick, in my view. I'm no legal expert, but I'm smart enough to know that the jury was instructed to consider evidence -- and only evidence -- among other instructions from the judge. I just get tired of guys like Tucker Carlson and others arguing based upon what the media reported.
My favorite of all, of course, was when Carlson -- right on cue -- called Jackson a "Democratic fundraiser." Nothing like finding any fucking crevice into which you can force your agenda, Tuck, no matter how utterly fucking stupid you are about it. He did one fundraiser a few years ago. I love it when people bend facts to fit their cause.
I like Tucker Carlson, but his show is a cheap, political knock-off of Pardon the Interruption.
They're hashing over the Michael Jackson verdict and ol' Tucker is doing what talk show hosts do too often when discussing a controversial topic such: arguing on emotion and gray areas and passing them off as fact.
It's interesting to me that, after every conservative talk show host went apeshit over Newsweek running a story based on faulty information are now blasting the jury for not convicting the King of Pepsi.
THink about it. Newsweek ran a story that, let's be fair, is entirely plausible, (and we're now learning of KOran abuse (which is a stupid, stupid thing to worry about in my view) but in the end was false. And the conservatives went nuts. They called for retractions. The White House began pretending they were the editorial board.
And now, Tucker Carlson is bitching up a blue streak over the a jury for not convicting based soley on the "where there's smoke there's fire" charge. It's a cheap ploy to fire up people. It's sort of a dirty trick, in my view. I'm no legal expert, but I'm smart enough to know that the jury was instructed to consider evidence -- and only evidence -- among other instructions from the judge. I just get tired of guys like Tucker Carlson and others arguing based upon what the media reported.
My favorite of all, of course, was when Carlson -- right on cue -- called Jackson a "Democratic fundraiser." Nothing like finding any fucking crevice into which you can force your agenda, Tuck, no matter how utterly fucking stupid you are about it. He did one fundraiser a few years ago. I love it when people bend facts to fit their cause.
I like Tucker Carlson, but his show is a cheap, political knock-off of Pardon the Interruption.
