Protesters outside of Tucker Carlson's house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Mrs. Carlson was home alone when the alt-left antifa criminals were trying to break down her front door to attack her.

Antifa is far-right. No government = extreme conservatism.

Nice attempt, but WRONG. Even the liberally biased CNN reports them as far-left extremists:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/media/tucker-carlson-protestors/index.html

Thank you, CNN, for the spotlight on the radical alt-left Antifa. They are crazed Marxists.

Fear them if they come for you. They'll bash your face and Democrat-controlled police departments will let them. Mrs. Carlson is lucky to be alive.

Yes. And what I want to know is.....did the police show up and arrest the thugs? tucker said she barricaded herself and called 911.

Did they show up? Do they have the alt-left radicals in custody?

Also, Tucker debates with some real hateful leftists on his show. Is it possible one of them was in that crowd?

Last night, he said that he does believe a former guest was one of the leftists who threatened his wife. He also said that he cannot prove it, but the police will know soon enough.
Anyone who thinks this is ok, or should be ignored, is crazy. This is unacceptable, regardless of who is the target of this type of harassment and threats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Tucker has never made claims or encouraged protestors/ conspiracy theorists/ angry online crazies to threaten liberal groups. He is not innocent whatsoever. What goes around comes around and I have no sympathy for people who dish it out but can’t take it no matter what their politics are.

That's my take as well. He encourages violent behavior and feeds hate through the spread of half-truths. I have little sympathy for him.

He encourages violent behavior? Why do liberals always excuse the violence committed by alt-left thugs and blame it on a conservative?

And to the PP above you, what do you mean by "what goes around, comes around"? You are equating a debate on TV to a bunch of thugs threatening a reporter's wife and damaging their property? She must have been petrified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Tucker has never made claims or encouraged protestors/ conspiracy theorists/ angry online crazies to threaten liberal groups. He is not innocent whatsoever. What goes around comes around and I have no sympathy for people who dish it out but can’t take it no matter what their politics are.

That's my take as well. He encourages violent behavior and feeds hate through the spread of half-truths. I have little sympathy for him.

He encourages violent behavior? Why do liberals always excuse the violence committed by alt-left thugs and blame it on a conservative?

And to the PP above you, what do you mean by "what goes around, comes around"? You are equating a debate on TV to a bunch of thugs threatening a reporter's wife and damaging their property? She must have been petrified.

Ignore the pps. They are condoning this behavior because they don’t like the person who has been targeted in the attacks by these leftists.
If this has been one of their “heroes” targeted, they would likely be organizing a march right now.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Tucker has never made claims or encouraged protestors/ conspiracy theorists/ angry online crazies to threaten liberal groups. He is not innocent whatsoever. What goes around comes around and I have no sympathy for people who dish it out but can’t take it no matter what their politics are.

So you're fine with terrorizing children, as long as they're conservatives' children?

Tucker’s kids aren’t really children - all are older than 15. Plus, they aren’t even home. They are away at boarding school(s) and college(s).

Ok, then. It's OK to terrorize conservatives' children as long as they are at least 16? Do you have a limit on the other end? OK to terrorize elderly as long as they are under 85?

Why is it acceptable to terrorize anyone?

No one on this thread has said this is “ok.”

Some of us don’t really care, because Tucker is sort of vile. But we welcome police investigating and enforcing the law in this case.

Wrong. Plenty of you have shown your true colors and very much said this is "ok." As if there was ever any doubt.

Where? You say it’s in the thread, go ahead and post a quote.

Do your own dirty work. Start on page one of this thread and keep going. You people are disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Mrs. Carlson was home alone when the alt-left antifa criminals were trying [youtube]to break down her front door to attack her.

Antifa is far-right. No government = extreme conservatism.

Hahahahahahaha. Nice try. Why can't you liberals own the fact that Antifa is FAR-LEFT? I mean, I'd be embarrassed too, but they're all yours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=antifa
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-antifa-is-the-moral-equivalent-of-neo-nazis/2017/08/30/9a13b2f6-8d00-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f33dc36a38ff
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/antifa-left-wing-faction-far-right.html

Then I guess you get to "own" all of the facists, NeoNazis, etc. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Tucker has never made claims or encouraged protestors/ conspiracy theorists/ angry online crazies to threaten liberal groups. He is not innocent whatsoever. What goes around comes around and I have no sympathy for people who dish it out but can’t take it no matter what their politics are.

That's my take as well. He encourages violent behavior and feeds hate through the spread of half-truths. I have little sympathy for him.

He encourages violent behavior? Why do liberals always excuse the violence committed by alt-left thugs and blame it on a conservative?

And to the PP above you, what do you mean by "what goes around, comes around"? You are equating a debate on TV to a bunch of thugs threatening a reporter's wife and damaging their property? She must have been petrified.

Ignore the pps. They are condoning this behavior because they don’t like the person who has been targeted in the attacks by these leftists.
If this has been one of their “heroes” targeted, they would likely be organizing a march right now.......

+1
I don't think I've ever come across bigger hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tucker looks younger than he is. His kids are adults or very close to being adults.

I watched him since he was in CNN Crossfire. He is interesting and unpredictable and not really all that partisan. Most people commenting here have obviously never watched his show. This is not Hannity or Ingraham or Rush. Most of the time he argues with the opposing side and often, he loses.

That is true of the old Tucker. Not the one who sold his soul to take over O'Reily's hour. I used to think just as you did about Tucker but his current show is just blatant propaganda. I hope the bajillions of dollars he's making are worth it.

I'm sometimes more disgusted with him than Ingraham and Hannity actually because I think they are just terrible people and true believers. Tucker I know, deep down, knows how effing insane all this is and has decided the paycheck is worth being complicit.

Please share some quotes of Carlson's "blatant propaganda". Thank you!

First, you'd have to ask the liberal how he defines "blatant propoganda." I imagine it's "opinions I disagree with."

Well first I am a woman. Second I would love to sit down with you guys and watch Tucker Carlson and talk to you about how I think he rhetorically manipulates his audience pretty shamelessly.

He asks extraordinarily leading questions designed not to actually hear something from his guest, but to tell something to his audience via the question. IE, he doesn't ask, 'how do you feel about illegal immigration guest?' he will instead say, 'but aren't you worried about murdering gang members infecting our schools and swarming across the border?'

That is not journalism, it is an expert spreading of fear and dishonestly. So yes I disagree with his opinions. But more than that I disagree with his dishonest and deceptive messaging tactics that are designed to humiliate/cut down his guests and to spread his opinions not via good faith sharing of ideas, but through insidious rhetorical tricks on his show.

And worst of all, I don't think he believes them all, so he's using his powers not just for things he believes in, but for the Trump administration. You know that every time a huge trump story breaks and when you tune into Tucker he's talking about some mexican who assaulted someone in LA that they have no information on. Bad news about Trump? Won't cover it but WILL continue to spread his message of fear to reinforce the base's feelings that they need to stand by Trump despite whatever the bad news story is.

"He asks extraordinarily leading questions."
THAT'S the best you can do??!!???!!!

You have not. one. single. quote of ANYTHING "horrible"?

You Libs are PATHETIC.

One example I found particularly irritating was a segment he did with a professor who claimed that Hillary Clinton still had a path to the Presidency after Trump was elected. It was back in early 2017 I believe. The professor was a civics/political science expert who had been asked by multiple students/people whatever about a million times if it was possible. So he wrote a blog saying it was technically possible but extraordinarily unlikely. The path he said was theoretically possible but practically basically impossible was that if Trump was impeached and Pence resigned then Ryan could become President, appoint HRC as his VP and then resign himself. Something really incredibly ridiculous. And that was the professor's point. That that would never happen but if people wanted a scenario that put HRC in the white house that would be it.

Tucker brought this guy onto his show and grilled him like he had personally advocated for that scenario. Basically treated him like a moron for proposing this as a possibility. And this was disingenuous because that hadn't been the point of the professor's blog at all. I watched the segment and couldn't really believe what I was watching. It was ridiculous. And that is the type of thing Tucker does all the time. He's very good at it. It can rarely be boiled down to a single quote or excerpt, its sustained tonal propaganda.


http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/18/harvard-professor-says-hillary-clinton-can-be-president-if-trump-forced-out-over-russia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Tucker has never made claims or encouraged protestors/ conspiracy theorists/ angry online crazies to threaten liberal groups. He is not innocent whatsoever. What goes around comes around and I have no sympathy for people who dish it out but can’t take it no matter what their politics are.

That's my take as well. He encourages violent behavior and feeds hate through the spread of half-truths. I have little sympathy for him.

He encourages violent behavior? Why do liberals always excuse the violence committed by alt-left thugs and blame it on a conservative?

And to the PP above you, what do you mean by "what goes around, comes around"? You are equating a debate on TV to a bunch of thugs threatening a reporter's wife and damaging their property? She must have been petrified.

Ignore the pps. They are condoning this behavior because they don’t like the person who has been targeted in the attacks by these leftists.
If this has been one of their “heroes” targeted, they would likely be organizing a march right now.......

At least Tucker has money, I'm sure he has hired armed off-duty police officers to guard his property and protect his family. (Although truthfully, DC should provide the protection.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Tucker has never made claims or encouraged protestors/ conspiracy theorists/ angry online crazies to threaten liberal groups. He is not innocent whatsoever. What goes around comes around and I have no sympathy for people who dish it out but can’t take it no matter what their politics are.

So you're fine with terrorizing children, as long as they're conservatives' children?

Tucker’s kids aren’t really children - all are older than 15. Plus, they aren’t even home. They are away at boarding school(s) and college(s).

Ok, then. It's OK to terrorize conservatives' children as long as they are at least 16? Do you have a limit on the other end? OK to terrorize elderly as long as they are under 85?

Why is it acceptable to terrorize anyone?

No one on this thread has said this is “ok.”

Some of us don’t really care, because Tucker is sort of vile. But we welcome police investigating and enforcing the law in this case.

Wrong. Plenty of you have shown your true colors and very much said this is "ok." As if there was ever any doubt.

Where? You say it’s in the thread, go ahead and post a quote.

Do your own dirty work. Start on page one of this thread and keep going. You people are disgusting.

Liar. No one said it was "ok". DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Mrs. Carlson was home alone when the alt-left antifa criminals were trying [youtube]to break down her front door to attack her.

Antifa is far-right. No government = extreme conservatism.

Hahahahahahaha. Nice try. Why can't you liberals own the fact that Antifa is FAR-LEFT? I mean, I'd be embarrassed too, but they're all yours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=antifa
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-antifa-is-the-moral-equivalent-of-neo-nazis/2017/08/30/9a13b2f6-8d00-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f33dc36a38ff
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/antifa-left-wing-faction-far-right.html

Then I guess you get to "own" all of the facists, NeoNazis, etc. Good luck with that.

That's the point, genius. We're told over and over on this site that conservatives "own" those extremist groups. So if that's the way you want to play it, liberals own Antifa and other left-wing nuts. Congratulations.

[Anonymous]

Exactly Liberals are in lockstep with Antifa.
That's why no one goes to lockup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Tucker has never made claims or encouraged protestors/ conspiracy theorists/ angry online crazies to threaten liberal groups. He is not innocent whatsoever. What goes around comes around and I have no sympathy for people who dish it out but can’t take it no matter what their politics are.

So you're fine with terrorizing children, as long as they're conservatives' children?

Tucker’s kids aren’t really children - all are older than 15. Plus, they aren’t even home. They are away at boarding school(s) and college(s).

Ok, then. It's OK to terrorize conservatives' children as long as they are at least 16? Do you have a limit on the other end? OK to terrorize elderly as long as they are under 85?

Why is it acceptable to terrorize anyone?

No one on this thread has said this is “ok.”

Some of us don’t really care, because Tucker is sort of vile. But we welcome police investigating and enforcing the law in this case.

Wrong. Plenty of you have shown your true colors and very much said this is "ok." As if there was ever any doubt.

Where? You say it’s in the thread, go ahead and post a quote.

Do your own dirty work. Start on page one of this thread and keep going. You people are disgusting.

Liar. No one said it was "ok". DP.

I should report you for calling me a liar, but instead I'll just prove you wrong. Have a great day and try to stop lying and blaming others for your own issues. This was just through page 5:

That’s not how it works. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This is what happens when you sell your soul as a propagandist. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

It seems just deserts for Carlson after profiting by spreading many half-truths and hate.

Because Tucker has never made claims or encouraged protestors/ conspiracy theorists/ angry online crazies to threaten liberal groups. He is not innocent whatsoever. What goes around comes around and I have no sympathy for people who dish it out but can’t take it no matter what their politics are.

He expects to be treated with the courtesy he routinely denies others. His actions have consequences.

That's my take as well. He encourages violent behavior and feeds hate through the spread of half-truths. I have little sympathy for him.

The country is in a constitutional crisis, I can’t really spare concern for one dipshit getting his comeuppance from a bunch of other dipshits.

Terrorizing? LOL.

But to answer your question, I would not be one out there. And I don't like it. But, he invited it. His wife should be taking him to task for putting their family in the spotlight with his BS, conspiracy theories, accusations, and incivility. Once he does that, he would have a shred of sympathy from me. As it is, he doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible.
I know this is a small minority of activists but their behavior should be called out. People should not be accosted in restaurants, in their homes or when they are “off the clock”

That’s not how it works. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Above is just one of the many evil posts by a Liberal.
Shame on you all!

For you, 9:55, you liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Tucker has never made claims or encouraged protestors/ conspiracy theorists/ angry online crazies to threaten liberal groups. He is not innocent whatsoever. What goes around comes around and I have no sympathy for people who dish it out but can’t take it no matter what their politics are.

So you're fine with terrorizing children, as long as they're conservatives' children?

Tucker’s kids aren’t really children - all are older than 15. Plus, they aren’t even home. They are away at boarding school(s) and college(s).

Ok, then. It's OK to terrorize conservatives' children as long as they are at least 16? Do you have a limit on the other end? OK to terrorize elderly as long as they are under 85?

Why is it acceptable to terrorize anyone?

No one on this thread has said this is “ok.”

Some of us don’t really care, because Tucker is sort of vile. But we welcome police investigating and enforcing the law in this case.

Wrong. Plenty of you have shown your true colors and very much said this is "ok." As if there was ever any doubt.

Where? You say it’s in the thread, go ahead and post a quote.

Do your own dirty work. Start on page one of this thread and keep going. You people are disgusting.

Liar. No one said it was "ok". DP.

I should report you for calling me a liar, but instead I'll just prove you wrong. Have a great day and try to stop lying and blaming others for your own issues. This was just through page 5:

That’s not how it works. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This is what happens when you sell your soul as a propagandist. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

It seems just deserts for Carlson after profiting by spreading many half-truths and hate.

Because Tucker has never made claims or encouraged protestors/ conspiracy theorists/ angry online crazies to threaten liberal groups. He is not innocent whatsoever. What goes around comes around and I have no sympathy for people who dish it out but can’t take it no matter what their politics are.

He expects to be treated with the courtesy he routinely denies others. His actions have consequences.

That's my take as well. He encourages violent behavior and feeds hate through the spread of half-truths. I have little sympathy for him.

The country is in a constitutional crisis, I can’t really spare concern for one dipshit getting his comeuppance from a bunch of other dipshits.

Terrorizing? LOL.

But to answer your question, I would not be one out there. And I don't like it. But, he invited it. His wife should be taking him to task for putting their family in the spotlight with his BS, conspiracy theories, accusations, and incivility. Once he does that, he would have a shred of sympathy from me. As it is, he doesn't.

Exactly. Thank you!
Funny how admin doesn't hit his DELETE button for the Lib Liars.

[Anonymous]

Still not one quote showing how Carlson is "horrible".
You lying lib losers.