9 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

You have done more stereotyping than anyone on this board. And that's a fact.

2nd most, the king is kmart kz

11 minutes ago, downundermike said:

2nd most, the king is kmart kz

Nope. He does it more than anyone and that's 100 percent a fact.

What a stupid F'ing thread

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

What a stupid F'ing thread

 

 

What.......it's about a man who is a goat, or is as smart as a goat, I don't remember.

2 minutes ago, downundermike said:

What.......it's about a man who is a goat, or is as smart as a goat, I don't remember.

My favorite part is that the existence of the thread itself answer this question.

On 7/8/2021 at 3:03 PM, Kz! said:

Please provide examples of his numerous "outright lies."

 

4 hours ago, The_Omega said:

Oh look, the defund the police crowd, who have spent the past 14 months slandering police officers everywhere, have found an ideologically useful police officer to defend.  Good for Officer Harry Dunn, who is a professional who did his job at great personal risk, and deserves his chance to speak, but who has also spent years on social media voicing his political opinions, which should also be taken into account when he does speak.

I don't recall anybody here supporting defund the police.

4 hours ago, The_Omega said:

Oh look, the defund the police crowd, 

Don’t try to label me. You don’t know who I am. 

5 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

What a stupid F'ing thread

 

 

 

 

Just wait.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/619524/

 

 

45 minutes ago, downundermike said:

 

Of course he lied. One would have to be a complete idiot to believe his ratings chasing BS. Good thing we don't have any of those guys here.

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

 

And we’ve reached the hospice stage in the life cycle of a Kz thread. 

And shockingly, the original story is confirmed. Surprising no one except for the dumbest cult on the planet. 🤣🤣🤣

3 hours ago, downundermike said:

 

 

9 minutes ago, Kz! said:

And shockingly, the original story is confirmed. Surprising no one except for the dumbest cult on the planet. 🤣🤣🤣

, At least he hasn't locked it.

2 hours ago, Kz! said:

And shockingly, the original story is confirmed. Surprising no one except for the dumbest cult on the planet. 🤣🤣🤣

Maybe you should look at the title of the article that the person who is tweeting is posting.  He obviously can’t read, and you obviously don’t read, and now you look like a horses *ss.

 

 

40 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Maybe you should look at the title of the article that the person who is tweeting is posting.  He obviously can’t read, and you obviously don’t read, and now you look like a horses *ss.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, downundermike said:

Maybe you should look at the title of the article that the person who is tweeting is posting.  He obviously can’t read, and you obviously don’t read, and now you look like a horses *ss.

 

 

I bet, like everyone in here, you sure are tired of Kz! always being right.

Quote

Instead, the nation’s top electronic spy agency found that Carlson was mentioned in communications between third parties and his name was subsequently revealed through "unmasking,” a process in which relevant government officials can request the identities of American citizens in intelligence reports to be divulged provided there is an official reason, such as helping them make sense of the intelligence documents they are reviewing.

The NSA obscures the names of Americans mentioned in its finished products in an effort to protect their privacy. 

The sources declined to comment on who mentioned Carlson in their communications.

So if you read past the headline, his name was, in fact, unmasked.

People are going to argue over the term "targeting.” The left will claim he wasn’t targeted because they weren’t directly spying on him. The right will say he was targeted because his name was unmasked and communications leaked to the press.

The issue here is the unmasking. Why was his name unmasked (as the NSA now admits) and why did another journalist have access to the transcripts of his communications?

Maybe there was a legitimate reason to unmask it, but even if there was, why was it leaked to the press along with transcripts of his communications if this is indeed what happened? That’s illegal, for anyone who cares, and despite the headline of the article, Tucker just got a little more credibility because the NSA admitted they unmasked his name.

8 hours ago, downundermike said:

Maybe you should look at the title of the article that the person who is tweeting is posting.  He obviously can’t read, and you obviously don’t read, and now you look like a horses *ss.

 

 

Lol your own article basically admits that he was spied on and unmasked just not "targeted.” Who said he wasn’t "targeted” well the people who are accused of unmasking him. You are literally too stupid to argue with. 🤣😂🤣

34 minutes ago, TEW said:

So if you read past the headline, his name was, in fact, unmasked.

People are going to argue over the term "targeting.” The left will claim he wasn’t targeted because they weren’t directly spying on him. The right will say he was targeted because his name was unmasked and communications leaked to the press.

The issue here is the unmasking. Why was his name unmasked (as the NSA now admits) and why did another journalist have access to the transcripts of his communications?

Maybe there was a legitimate reason to unmask it, but even if there was, why was it leaked to the press along with transcripts of his communications if this is indeed what happened? That’s illegal, for anyone who cares, and despite the headline of the article, Tucker just got a little more credibility because the NSA admitted they unmasked his name.

There is, but the details are contained on a flash drive being shipped across the country by DHL.

3 hours ago, TEW said:

So if you read past the headline, his name was, in fact, unmasked.

People are going to argue over the term "targeting.” The left will claim he wasn’t targeted because they weren’t directly spying on him. The right will say he was targeted because his name was unmasked and communications leaked to the press.

The issue here is the unmasking. Why was his name unmasked (as the NSA now admits) and why did another journalist have access to the transcripts of his communications?

Maybe there was a legitimate reason to unmask it, but even if there was, why was it leaked to the press along with transcripts of his communications if this is indeed what happened? That’s illegal, for anyone who cares, and despite the headline of the article, Tucker just got a little more credibility because the NSA admitted they unmasked his name.

So communications between third parties (which I would wager are foreign nationals) included mention of an American, and those communications were significant enough that investigators sought and got approval to unmask who turned out to be Tucker Carlson, and you're somehow interpreting this as being in any way consistent with Carlson's made up narrative? 

I think quarantine drinking has taken a cognitive toll dude.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

So communications between third parties (which I would wager are foreign nationals) included mention of an American, and those communications were significant enough that investigators sought and got approval to unmask who turned out to be Tucker Carlson, and you're somehow interpreting this as being in any way consistent with Carlson's made up narrative? 

I think quarantine drinking has taken a cognitive toll dude.

It is literally illegal to unmask someone's name and then leak it. Tucker claimed his communications were given by the NSA to a journalist. The NSA just admitted his name was unmasked and that they intercepted his communications. So, yes, it's very consistent with his narrative. Next up -- how did Tucker find out this was happening? Because if, as he says, it came from a journalist who was given the unmasked documents, we have a literal crime.