March 23, 20214 yr On 9/25/2020 at 9:28 AM, RPeeteRules said: After reading that article and court documents that are in the article, this does seem like a good place to put this article. The argument being made is that Tucker gave his opinion. The whole segment, when using context, was an opinion commentary. This article is, much like Tucker’s segment, an opinion. Basically, this article took the premise that stating an opinion isn’t stating a fact, then made it seem like Fox News argued that Tucker shouldn’t be taken seriously. They argued that his opinion isn’t a fact, and it’s reasonable that an opinion isn’t a fact. On 9/28/2020 at 8:10 PM, RPeeteRules said: I think the only reason I looked into the article (and court documents linked in that article) is because I saw a few people on Facebook share this same article. I wouldn’t have been surprised if FoxNews did say that people shouldn’t take him seriously. The problem is the argument in court is that his opinion isn’t a fact and shouldn’t be reasonably taken as a fact. If people wonder why people don’t trust certain outlets, it’s because of pieces like this. 10 minutes ago, Toastrel said: No, you just don't believe Fox. Or pretty much anything that is contrary to what you already know to be true. 10 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: no, it wasn't. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/ RPeete did a good job of debunking this the first time Toaster posted it months ago in the fake news thread. Fox's argument was that Tucker was giving his opinion during the news segment in question. Did you read the details of the case? It was basically this woman suing Tucker because Tucker described her actions as "extortion." I know it's an exciting headline, but it's fake news. Toaster fell for it twice.
March 23, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, Kz! said: RPeete did a good job of debunking this the first time Toaster posted it months ago in the fake news thread. Fox's argument was that Tucker was giving his opinion during the news segment in question. Did you read the details of the case? It was basically this woman suing Tucker because Tucker described her actions as "extortion." I know it's an exciting headline, but it's fake news. Toaster fell for it twice. I love how you see the words in black and white in the court transcripts and still deflect away.
March 23, 20214 yr Just now, Toastrel said: I love how you see the words in black and white in the court transcripts and still deflect away. No, the court transcripts are exactly what you should read, and not misleading headlines that you fell for. From the link Johnsnow posted: Quote Fox News seeks dismissal at the pleading stage on two constitutional grounds. First, it asserts that Mr. Carlson’s statements on the December 10, 2018, episode of his show are constitutionally protected opinion commentary on matters of public importance and are not reasonably understood as being factual. Fox's argument was literally that Tucker was giving his opinion and not stating a fact, and that no reasonable person would be unable to distinguish between the two. Smooth-brained, easily manipulated individuals, such as yourself are the target audience for fake news hit jobs. Congrats on falling for it twice.
March 23, 20214 yr 8 minutes ago, Kz! said: No, the court transcripts are exactly what you should read, and not misleading headlines that you fell for. From the link Johnsnow posted: Fox's argument was literally that Tucker was giving his opinion and not stating a fact, and that no reasonable person would be unable to distinguish between the two. Smooth-brained, easily manipulated individuals, such as yourself are the target audience for fake news hit jobs. Congrats on falling for it twice. You come so close to using the words in the transcript and then you shy away. I wonder why? Oh wait, I know why. You're a trumpbot moron.
March 23, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, Toastrel said: You come so close to using the words in the transcript and then you shy away. I wonder why? Oh wait, I know why. You're a trumpbot moron. I literally just did in the post you quoted, smooth brain. Again, fake news outlets pray on the people who are too lazy or stupid to read the source material. Try to be less of either and you won't find yourself always being duped.
March 23, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, Kz! said: I literally just did in the post you quoted, smooth brain. Again, fake news outlets pray on the people who are too lazy or stupid to read the source material. Try to be less of either and you won't find yourself always being duped. Kz, either you knew your posts were false for months and were just trolling or you were gullible and believed that stolen election nonsense. Which is it??
March 23, 20214 yr 14 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Kz, either you knew your posts were false for months and were just trolling or you were gullible and believed that stolen election nonsense. Which is it?? Yeah, no one cares. Don't try to bail toaster out when he's getting eviscerated by changing the subject.
March 23, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, Kz! said: Yeah, no one cares. Don't try to bail toaster out when he's getting eviscerated by changing the subject. The Tucker Carlson stuff is old news. Who gives a f about that anymore?
March 23, 20214 yr 8 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: The Tucker Carlson stuff is old news. Who gives a f about that anymore? Apparently @JohnSnowsHair and @Toastrel? IDK, they're the ones that brought it up. I just enjoy myth-busting fake news, especially when the target of their smears is a personal hero of mine.
March 23, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, Kz! said: Apparently @JohnSnowsHair and @Toastrel? IDK, they're the ones that brought it up. I just enjoy myth-busting fake news. Because Sidney Powell is using the same defense that Carlson used. Not because they want to parse out the trial transcripts from last summer.
March 23, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, Dave Moss said: Because Sidney Powell is using the same defense that Carlson used. Not because they want to parse out the trial transcripts from last summer. Again, Carlson did not use that defense. It was fake news. Try to follow along.
March 23, 20214 yr 13 minutes ago, Kz! said: Again, Carlson did not use that defense. It was fake news. Try to follow along. From Judge Vyskocil's opinion: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive(s) with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
March 23, 20214 yr only a loon would take anything tucker carlson says as fact! even faux news admitted it.
March 23, 20214 yr Just now, mr_hunt said: only a loon would take anything tucker carlson says as fact! even faux news admitted it. You people can't read.
March 23, 20214 yr "No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” Powell's attorneys said in a court filing defending her against a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, the manufacturer of the election equipment she claimed was involved in the conspiracy to steal the election.
March 23, 20214 yr @Kz! So were you just trolling for months or are you one of the unreasonable (or special) people excluded by Powell's attorneys?
March 23, 20214 yr cheeto lawyer & righty news media: we're clearly full of sheet and only a loon would believe what we're saying. trumpbots: I BELIEVE THEM!
March 23, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, Dave Moss said: @Kz! So were you just trolling for months or are you one of the unreasonable (or special) people excluded by Powell's attorneys? I was just asking questions.
March 23, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, Kz! said: I was just asking questions. And you didn't think Trump losing 60 election lawsuits was a red flag??
March 23, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, Dave Moss said: And you didn't think Trump losing 60 election lawsuits was a red flag?? You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
March 23, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, Gannan said: KZ: Imagine being conned by a con-man, but then actually kind of liking it.
March 23, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, Dave Moss said: Imagine being conned by a con-man, but then actually kind of liking it. Quote "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan
March 23, 20214 yr 56 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: The Tucker Carlson stuff is old news. Who gives a f about that anymore? Aren't you a historian?
Create an account or sign in to comment