"Sidney Powell is not a credible source, nor a good attorney..."

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It’s not what I think. It is what their lawyers stated in court.

In Tucker’s case they used his reputation of being a liar as part of their defense for why his statements should not be reasonably taken as fact. His own lawyers.

You can keep living in denial but these are not my words. They are their own lawyer’s words.

I’m not a huge fan of Tucker Carlson—his frequent guest Mark Steyn is another matter—and don’t care to defend him here. But your gross mischaracterization of his case is indefensible.

Reading through the judge’s decision, it is clear that:

1. Tucker’s show falls into the same category as all other political opinion shows;
2. Such shows regularly employ hyperbole, exaggeration, and non-factual material;
3. Viewers should be well aware of these points and draw conclusions accordingly;
4. The specific context of Tucker’s comments included a disclaimer of assumption;
5. Tucker was relying on another person’s comments for the sake of argument.

Any reasonable person who is also well-informed, balanced, and honest, would not cite this case as out of the norm, nor reason to avoid Tucker Carlson as a political commentator in particular.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I’m not a huge fan of Tucker Carlson—his frequent guest Mark Steyn is another matter—and don’t care to defend him here. But your gross mischaracterization of his case is indefensible.

Reading through the judge’s decision, it is clear that:

1. Tucker’s show falls into the same category as all other political opinion shows;
2. Such shows regularly employ hyperbole, exaggeration, and non-factual material;
3. Viewers should be well aware of these points and draw conclusions accordingly;
4. The specific context of Tucker’s comments included a disclaimer of assumption;
5. Tucker was relying on another person’s comments for the sake of argument.

Any reasonable person who is also well-informed, balanced, and honest, would not cite this case as out of the norm, nor reason to avoid Tucker Carlson as a political commentator in particular.

Exactly. The judge and yourself agrees with everything that I said about what he admitted in his motion to dismiss.

He has a reputation for making non factual statements that no reasonable person should believe as fact.

I’m not sure why you then call my agreement with you and with his lawyers a mischaracterization.


Watching Tucker is like watching SNL. If you believe they are news or factual, that is on you.

The difference is that Tucker promotes himself as a reputable news person and tries to convince his audience that he is actually trying to deliver truthful facts when in court he says the opposite about himself. He believes no reasonable person would take his statements as fact. What does that say about what he thinks of his audience?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…I’m not sure why you then call my agreement with you and with his lawyers a mischaracterization. …

Watching Tucker is like watching SNL. If you believe they are news or factual, that is on you. …

It should be painfully obvious by now. Because of trying to single him out as some sort of exception when the Dem Progressive Left MSM do the same thing and far worse.

I don't generally watch Tucker Carlson. His guest Mark Steyn is clearly intentionally doing comic relief. I've never seen Tucker do news, only political commentary. The case you cited is about such a segment.

Accusing me of believing Tucker’s show is completely factual is further mischaracterization, this time of me, and this after I clearly stated otherwise. Your posts are downright dishonest and appear to be intentionally so. They deserve no better reputation than you rate Tucker’s show.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Accusing me of believing Tucker’s show is completely factual is further mischaracterization, this time of me, and this after I clearly stated otherwise. Your posts are downright dishonest and appear to be intentionally so. They deserve no better reputation than you rate Tucker’s show.

Apologizes. The “you” there was the generic “you”. Not specifically you.

It should have read “if someone believes ... it is on them”

You say this and then you post a Tucker Carlson article in the news section of this forum. Is that really consistent?

 

[Gold Dragon]

It should be painfully obvious by now. Because of trying to single him out as some sort of exception when the Dem Progressive Left MSM do the same thing and far worse.

He singled himself out by using this argument in a defamation case.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

He singled himself out by using this argument in a defamation case.

Not according to the dismissal, nor according to the points I listed. Your posts are cherrypicking.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…You say this and then you post a Tucker Carlson article in the news section of this forum. Is that really consistent?

You singled out Tucker your way, I singled him out mine, mainly in response to what you have drawn attention to through your own, along with a caveat emptor. And I said as much in the OP.

If only the Dem Progressive Left MSM would now admit their own deceptions, which are often insidious, but have grown more blatant.

Mika did let the cat out of the bag with her admission that they are trying to control what people think with their false narrative. The Dem Progressive Left MSM are a devious lot and hate America intensely.

When I want good political analysis and without all the hype, I look for what Victor Hanson III is saying.

Victor Davis Hanson III | The Biden Administration

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...You say this and then you post a Tucker Carlson article in the news section of this forum. Is that really consistent?

OK, I didn't quite catch your point there, which again is very deceptive. The forum is entitled, "News and Current Events". You conveniently left out "Current Events," which would render your point moot or wrongheaded.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Not according to the dismissal, nor according to the points I listed. Your posts are cherrypicking.

I wish to be fair and include in my condemnation everyone who claims be speaking facts based on evidence to convince their audience of those claims and then in court admits they make statements no reasonable person would call factual.

Powell, Carlson, Jones and any leftist or MSM personalities who have admitted such things in court deserve that same condemnation.

 

[Gold Dragon]

along with a caveat emptor. And I said as much in the OP.

Kudos. Definitely a move in the right direction with respect to how to post non-factual statements from folks who admit in court that is what they do and have a reputation for such statements.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Kudos. Definitely a move in the right direction with respect to how to post non-factual statements from folks who admit in court that is what they do and have a reputation for such statements.

I wish to be fair and include in my condemnation everyone who claims be speaking facts based on evidence to convince their audience of those claims and then in court admits they make statements no reasonable person would call factual.

Powell, Carlson, Jones and any leftist or MSM personalities who have admitted such things in court deserve that same condemnation.

I didn't move. The caveat was added for people that fall into the category your posts indicate, those unaware of the general state of things. Your posts are patently unfair and disingenuous, as has been pointed out several times. If you want to be fair, then you should just blanket condemn all outlets purporting to report the news.

If I were to handle the Tucker matter as your posts suggest, then the truth would be this observance from the judge: “Plaintiff submits that Mr. Carlson’s statements were facts….”

Also, the decision cites cases against such infamous entities as The New York Times and Bloomberg precisely because they invoke the same protections as FOX and Carlson for the same reasons.

Again, trying to portray this as unusual for such “news” outlets is disingenuous, even hypocritical.

The truth is that “news” outlets regularly employ all manner of bias and deception as well as make non-factual statements as if true. No one should accept their “reportage” as truthful due merely to assertion or even supposed reputation.

Unbiased, strictly factual journalism is a myth. The Dem Progressive Left MSM are the worst offenders with the worst agenda, thus the least trustworthy outlets despite their claims otherwise. They prove this regularly, whether they admit it or not.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The truth is that “news” outlets regularly employ all manner of bias and deception as well as make non-factual statements as if true. No one should accept their “reportage” as truthful due merely to assertion or even supposed reputation.

That is your claim. You are free to your opinion.

And if you have those people admitting in court that they don’t think reasonable people should believe their statements as fact, I would be with you in your condemnation.

I prefer to base my understanding of reality with facts rather than claims that are hyperbolic that no reasonable person would take as fact. The fact is that Powell, Tucker and Jones have all admitted in court that no reasonable person should take their statements as fact. The people you claim are doing the same have not.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That is your claim. You are free to your opinion. And if you have those people admitting in court that they don’t think reasonable people should believe their statements as fact, I would be with you in your condemnation.

I prefer to base my understanding of reality with facts rather than claims that are hyperbolic that no reasonable person would take as fact. The fact is that Powell, Tucker and Jones have all admitted in court that no reasonable person should take their statements as fact. The people you claim are doing the same have not.

LOL. Did you even bother to read anything in those other cases? Your posts indicate a serious lack of understanding.

But already been up and down that road and proved the proverb true. No sense beating a dead horse full of Progressive Left Kool-Aid.

 

[Gold Dragon]

LOL. Did you even bother to read anything in those other cases? Your posts indicate a serious lack of understanding.

Show me someone else who makes a living convincing people of their supposed "facts" and then has admitted in court that no reasonable person should take their statements as fact and I will include them in this list. I don't care if they are progressive, MSM or leftist leaning. They absolutely deserve the same condemnation.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Show me someone else who makes a living convincing people of their supposed "facts" and then has admitted in court that no reasonable person should take their statements as fact and I will include them in this list. I don't care if they are progressive, MSM or leftist leaning. They absolutely deserve the same condemnation.

LOL. If you could demonstrate a firm grasp of how your posts have repeatedly mischaracterized and misrepresented arguments in the two cases discussed as well as my own arguments in this thread, this exchange could continue. We are at an obvious impasse.

 

[Gold Dragon]

LOL. If you could demonstrate a firm grasp of how your posts have repeatedly mischaracterized and misrepresented arguments in the two cases discussed as well as my own arguments in this thread, this exchange could continue. We are at an obvious impasse.

Ok.

I have referenced and quoted from primary sources the three motions to dismiss by Powell, Carlson and Jones that support my position. You have made claims with no supporting documentation from any source, primary or otherwise about the people you say are doing the same thing.

Just because a judge in the Carlson case says that some political commentary can have things like hyperbole and non-factual statements in it does not mean any of the people you are accusing of doing the same actual do that or that they themselves believe that no reasonable person would take their statements as fact like Powell, Carlson and Jones have admitted. Maybe the judge was thinking of Alex Jones and other shows on Fox News.

But if any left leaning progressive MSM news people admit in court what Powell, Jones and Carlson admit, I would have no problem condemning them either. And yes they might get out of a defamation suit that way. Just because it is unethical and insulting to your viewers does not make it defamation.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Ok.

I have referenced and quoted from primary sources the three motions to dismiss by Powell, Carlson and Jones that support my position. You have made claims with no supporting documentation from any source, primary or otherwise about the people you say are doing the same thing.

Just because a judge in the Carlson case says that some political commentary can have things like hyperbole and non-factual statements in it does not mean any of the people you are accusing of doing the same actual do that or that they themselves believe that no reasonable person would take their statements as fact like Powell, Carlson and Jones have. Maybe the judge was thinking of Alex Jones and other shows on Fox News.

But if any left leaning progressive MSM news people admit in court what Powell, Jones and Carlson admit, I would have no problem condemning them either. And yes they might get out of a defamation suit that way. Just because it is unethical and insulting to your viewers does not make it defamation.

Your posts fail to demonstrate understanding of the basis for the arguments, but rather focus on interpreting out of context.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I will reiterate that the Dem Progressive Left MSM frequently and intentionally lie and deceive less hyperbolically, making it much more difficult for those who foolishly listen only to "their side" to grasp the truth. Here is a "timely" confession many may never even know of.

NPR Admits Major Error After Claiming Hunter Biden Laptop Reports ‘Discredited’

What is more telling is their admission that they avoid stories that distract from their narrative, their agenda. Also that they worked in tandem with their counterparts to present a solid front.

Their narrative, their agenda in lying and deceiving in the Hunter Biden Laptop case was to cast doubt on and suppress a true story in order to aid Joe Biden in his bid to become president.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I will reiterate that the Dem Progressive Left MSM frequently and intentionally lie and deceive less hyperbolically, making it much more difficult for those who foolishly listen only to "their side" to grasp the truth. Here is a "timely" confession many may never even know of.

NPR Admits Major Error After Claiming Hunter Biden Laptop Reports ‘Discredited’

What is more telling is their admission that they avoid stories that distract from their narrative, their agenda. Also that they worked in tandem with their counterparts to present a solid front.

Their narrative, their agenda in lying and deceiving in the Hunter Biden Laptop case was to cast doubt on and suppress a true story in order to aid Joe Biden in his bid to become president.

Making an error and then voluntarily publishing a correction when you are aware of that error is trying to be as factual as possible given the information you have at that time, some of which may be found to be incorrect later.

That is the opposite of repeatedly using hyperbolic non-factual statements despite knowing the truth and then stating that reasonable people should have known better than believe you when called up on it in court.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Making an error and then voluntarily publishing a correction when you are aware of that error is trying to be as factual as possible given the information you have at that time, some of which may be found to be incorrect later. ...

LOL. That is just drinking the Kool-Aid. No reasonable, unbiased person would draw such a conclusion or allow news organizations to hide behind such claims as not knowing. If they didn't know, then they should have said so rather than stating it as fact.

The truth is that they didn't merely "make an error." They lied and deceived saying, "The laptop story was discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations," when nothing could have been further from the truth. They worked in concert to suppress the truth.

There were no such investigations, no such evidence, no such discredit. They made it up out of whole cloth to influence the suppression of bona fide stories. When news organizations work in concert to report such obviously false information, that is far worse than mere hyperbolic statements. The Dem Progressive Left MSM has zero credibility. They are a mere propaganda arm.