web analytics

The Paper of Record…….

By Patrick Van Roy On July 21st, 2020

Tucker Carlson: New York Times Wants To Publish My Address, They Want To “Hurt Us, To Injure My Wife”

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Last week, The New York Times began working on a story about where my family and I live. As a matter of journalism, there is no conceivable justification for a story like that. The paper is not alleging we’ve done anything wrong, and we haven’t. We pay our taxes. We like our neighbors. We’ve never had a dispute with anyone. So why is The New York Times doing a story on the location of my family’s house? Well, you know why. To hurt us, to injure my wife and kids so that I will shut up and stop disagreeing with them.  

 

135 Responses to “The Paper of Record…….”

  1. What evidence does Carlson present to verify his allegations?

    I’ll wait and see if the story appears before I form an opinion.

    ‘Anteeefa’

  2. Apparently there was no such story which Carlson knew before airtime. He’s back from a previously undisclosed vacation that coincidently coincided with one of his head writers dismissals for racist and sexist postings.

  3. That might explain it Mahons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy

    It’ll be interesting to see if this story materialises.

  4. The bad guys already know where Carlson lives.

    They had a late night demonstration at his home, in order to terrorize the wife and young children. It was commented upon here at the time.

    The bad guys have demonstrated outside the home of the Minnesota AG for weeks now

    This is terroristic activity, can never be justified, will get someone hurt.

  5. Except the NYT denied the story (which he didn’t mention on his show) and he suggested that their reporters and editors homes would be revealed.

  6. Well shame on him, then.

  7. Of course he’s full of it. He’s coming back from an embarrassing scandal (and another is appearing regarding misconduct) so what better than to pick a right wing target and pretend there is a threat that doesn’t exist.

  8. NYTs denied it in the WaPo (of course) The Reporter and Photographer refuse to answer anyone calls.

    The Times didn’t deny the story until 1000s of People on Twitter posted the Reporter, Photographer, and Editors names and addresses on Twitter……

    Then they made a public statement in another newspaper.

  9. here’s some more good ethical NY Journalism.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/21/the-atlantic-finally-admits-its-police-abolition-piece-is-based-on-a-false-narrative/

  10. So without evidence of wrongdoing Tucker Carlson encourages his scumbag viewers to attack the New York Times. And like good little scumbag sheep they do it. And in Patrick’s mind it is still the New York Times fault, and not Tucker Carlson and his pretty transparent attempt to distract people from the accusations that he’s a bit rapey.

  11. This is terroristic activity, can never be justified, will get someone hurt

    Although that’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is what evidence has Carlson presented to verify his allegations re the NYT.

  12. Looks like a dead cat diversion alright:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/20/fox-news-sexual-misconduct-lawsuit-ed-henry-tucker-carlson-sean-hannity

  13. It was denied on the Times twitter account, and Carlson never admitted he knew of the denial prior to going on air. He made it up. If Fox gig doesn’t work out he could join ATW as a right wing blogger.

  14. I don’t necessarily believe what the New York Times says, but if they had denied it before he went on the air, Carlson should’ve mentioned that fact

  15. What evidence beyond his allegations does Carlson prevent to verify it?

  16. A right-wing commenter on Fox News in the Trump era…. I mean, what do you expect from him – honesty?

  17. Carlson’s family has been threatened by terroristic night ” protesting ” that was actually recorded.

    A form of protesting that Patrick has specifically approved of here, which makes his post here complete bullshit.

    The fact that the NYT denies it only means that they ultimately denied it. It does not mean that they were not planning to disclose Carlson’s address before.

  18. “The fact that the NYT denies it only means that they ultimately denied it. It does not mean that they were not planning to disclose Carlson’s address before.”

    What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Unless there is any evidence then the safest assumption is that it is not true.

  19. //Carlson’s family has been threatened by terroristic night ”protesting” that was actually recorded.//

    Phantom, we all know how evil those driven by fanatical self-righteousness can be.

    But was the NYT encouraging them and with the intention of injuring his wife and kids so that he would be silenced? That’s what this paranoiac is claiming.

  20. It does not mean that they were not planning to disclose Carlson’s address before.

    Here you are Phantom:

    https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

  21. The NYT has written things without evidence many times before, as has probably all other media.

    The truth is not known, and it is not knowable, here.

    I give Carlson the benefit of any doubt on this one. He has many enemies, and he probably has a few sources in the NYT news room.

  22. Phantom, we all know how evil those driven by fanatical self-righteousness can be.

    But was the NYT encouraging them and with the intention of injuring his wife and kids so that he would be silenced? That’s what this paranoiac is claiming.

    If they did publish his address, the only possible reason for doing that would be as a threat to Carlson and the family.

    Terrorism takes many forms. Ask the AG of Minnesota, etc.

  23. “I give Carlson the benefit of any doubt on this one. He has many enemies, and he probably has a few sources in the NYT news room.”

    He has provided no evidence. He pretty much encouraged retaliation (which has occured). He was accused of sexual harrassment and wanted to change the media discussion on him. I don’t understand how he gets the benefit of the doubt.

  24. “If they did publish his address, the only possible reason for doing that would be as a threat to Carlson and the family.”

    But they didn’t publish it. And unless Carlson can produce evidence that proves or even suggests that they were even considering publishing it then this accusation belongs in the bin with the other right wing consipracy theory nonsense.

  25. He didn’t say that they published it.

  26. “He didn’t say that they published it.”

    But he said they were going to. Unless he provides evidence then not only should the accusation be thrown in the bin but Carlson should be called out for his scumbag followers doing that very thing to the reporter (who Carlson named, thus siccing the dogs onto him).

  27. What was done to the reporters was wrong.

    But Carlson may not be able to provide evidence without betraying a well placed NYT mole, a source who he wishes to protect, a source who may be useful again someday.

    That’s how this stuff works.

    The truth will remain unknown and unknowable.

  28. “But Carlson may not be able to provide evidence without betraying a well placed NYT mole, a source who he wishes to protect, a source who may be useful again someday.”

    If you can’t put your ducks in a row then don’t publish. There is no evidence that it is true, and there are plenty of reasons why Carlson would make it up. The safest assumption is that he is making it up.

  29. There is no known evidence that it is true, yes.

    I don’t know why he would make it up, unless you wish to flog the conspiracy theory about diverting attention from the other matter

    Carlson’s family was terrorized in 2018, when left wing goons ” protested ” outside the family home at night, when the wife was alone with young children. They vandalized the house.

    Any drawing attention to this form of terroristic action – which this does do – makes it more likely that the goons will do it again.

    This does not compute, but have fun with the conspiracy.

  30. “Carlson’s family was terrorized in 2018, when left wing goons ” protested ” outside the family home at night, when the wife was alone with young children. They vandalized the house.”

    Where the New York Times involved? And if not then what does it have to do with this?

    “This does not compute, but have fun with the conspiracy.”

    Which is more likely? A reputable newspaper would doxx a well known conservative anchor in an effort to get him attacked or it was made up by a less than reputable anchor with a history of making shit up, who was a few hours earlier accused of sexual harrassment?

  31. once again fannytom sides with the Trumpers, man this fear-mongering is becoming a daily pattern
    Trump good, Carlson good, Hannity good, protestors bad/;evil/terrorists

    In the north they have a great expression its called “worra knob” always loved that down to earth lang calling a spade a spade 😉 speaking as one who had read the classics too !

  32. He reported it as true. I’m not aware of other occasions upon which the NYT has provided individual’s home addresses to shut them down. Are you?

  33. You’re dancing angels on the heads of pins……

    The fact that they were going to publish his address and pictures of his house is true.

    You have the 2 most powerful News Publications in the country in open attack on each other. Before they let Tucker put the Names and the Picture of the reporter on air the Lawyers would have had to have seen proof.

    This is not a 3hr live radio show, this is a one hour production with the highest ratings in it’s time slot accusing the paper of record of a threat on his life. That isn’t done without the Lawyers covering all basis. Tucker even said he called the times first.

    The NYTs as stated by it’s own liberal writer as she resigned which was posted here, it is no longer the paper it was. They didn’t even Deny it first in their own paper they brought in Wapo instead and hid the reporter and photographer.

    so stop drinking and start thinking

  34. The truth or untruth is completely unknowable to anyone here at this time.

    It is all conjecture.

  35. no it’s not Phantom

    The Lawyers wouldn’t have let it air. The spot had graphics it was a “Produced” segment not off the cuff.

    You don’t say the NYTs is about to cause a threat to your life without it being true.

    It would be corporate suicide. No matter what FOX or the NYTs are they are businesses, each with a whole division of Lawyers on Staff.

  36. The “fact” is true because he says so? If there was a threat on his life why didn’t he file a police report?

  37. Nonsense, Carlson makes unsupported attacks on people all the time. There are no lawyers stopping him.

  38. list of “unsupported attacks” please.

  39. Lawyers are not infallible.

    And Fox News is controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

    Some of his newspaper properties in the UK were guilty of major wrongdoing in the not so distant past.

    Fox News itself was guilty vicious rumor mongering in the Seth Rich murder case.

  40. “list of “unsupported attacks” please.”

    He doesn’t need to. Mahons is a lawyer. He wouldn’t allow a claim like that to go forward without evidence.

  41. There are so many. Let’s take a look at his attacks on conservatives. He said Vice President Pence scolded the country for racism and said nothing about the rioting after Pence had denounced racism (not scolded America) and condemned the riots.

  42. He accused the President of the Heritage Foundation of claiming America was orredeemably racist. She has never said or written any such thing.

  43. He accused Nikki Haley of using racism charges to get what is good for her. He claimed she said Trump was similar to Dylan Root. He claimed she said Americans were personally responsible for the Floyd killing (she said no such thing).

  44. More? He accused Senator Duckworth who lost both her legs while serving in combat as a coward, a moron and someone who hates America.

  45. yeah I don’t see a single link to back up any of your accusations that what he said was not true, just your say so. What is your source ? or are these just your thoughts?

    Funny too, all Republicans that he’s made the “false” claims about…. just saying.

    Sources please Mahons to backup

    A) What Carlson said
    B) The proof if he said what you say he did that it was False.

    Please try to at least act like you know what you’re doing,

  46. I was unaware of some of those claims by Carlson.

    Not OK

    The comments about Duckworth are particularly vile.

    Carlson served in the same branch of the military that the Trump family has always served in.

  47. Doxxing of people who they disagree with is a policy that they published support for, and don’t say it’s just an op-ed, because the recent firings and resignations at the NYTs proves that their op-eds MUST reflect the will of the entire paper.

    Tom Homan blasts ‘disgusting’ NYT op-ed that calls for …
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tom-homan-blasts
    Jul 01, 2019 · Tom Homan on ‘disgusting’ op-ed calling for public shaming of border patrol agents. The New York Times column pushes a false narrative, says …

    Author: David Montanaro

    NY Times Op-Ed Calls for Doxxing of Border Agents
    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stephen
    Jun 29, 2019 · NY Times Op-Ed Calls for Doxxing of Border Agents. By Stephen Kruiser Jun 29, 2019 3:45 PM EST . Share Tweet Email Comments. Share . Tweet … Saturday’s New York Times …

  48. pat pls rather than treating us like morons could you balance ATW and post on the main news which is :

    Sexual misconduct lawsuit filed against Fox News, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Ed Henry and others

    Former Fox News employees Jennifer Eckhart and Cathy Areu filed a lawsuit in federal court on Monday accusing Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Howard Kurtz of sexual misconduct. The suit also includes previous rape allegations against former host Ed Henry, who was fired from the network on July 1.

  49. I said I’d let’s take a look at his attacks on conservatives. I’m not shocked you wouldn’t be familiar with them, thought the attack on Duckworth, a Democrat, is pretty week known. Fox’s own lawyers have defended him in Court actions indicating his is an opinion show and not a fact based news summary.

  50. I am familiar with each one, so I already have my arguments prepared for response if you have the balls to put up any evidence counselor.

    Sources please Mahons to backup

    A) What Carlson said
    B) The proof if he said what you say he did that it was False.

  51. no one here is a moron Kurt

  52. pat if any of the three amigos are convicted on sex crime charges , are they guilty ?

  53. I think Ramesh Ponnuru’s June 4, 2020 article in National Review “Tucker Carlson’s Misleading Attacks on Prominent Conservatives” would be a good place to start your education. The magazine started by William F Buckley is a conservative publication, and Ramesh is a respected long time contributor.

  54. oh so you want me to read someone else argument, not yours?

    Why?

    Aren’t you able to formulate your own thoughts ?

    Do you have any original thoughts?

  55. You asked me for a source. I gave it to you. I already gave my arguments above. Everyone here will note that when confronted with facts you’ll try to change the topic, make things personal our double down on incorrect claims. Sometimes all three.

  56. You can try to spin, distract, and obfuscate all you want. It doesn’t change the story the post is about.

    The NYTs was about to dox Carlson and they got hit with a preemptive strike by FOX.

    The story is true or we would be reading about the multimillion dollar lawsuits, which we are not.

    The NYTs is the National Enquirer, that’s what it has become and it’s a slow painful death. Not one I relish either. I read the damn paper, have for decades. It’s become a disgrace Mahons.

  57. Lol. Faced with examples you requested and the supporting link you requested you are now AS PREDICTED doubling down on the inaccurate claims.
    Priceless! I suppose you have to help OJ find the real killers instead of giving us your “already prepardd” arguments in tesponse.

  58. oh bull

    you state the story is false and cite past things that carlson said that you heard. I watch the damn show almost every night I know the incidents you cite and what you cite is spin.

    If the accusation was false the times would have them in court and you know it. There are no immunity issues here. He just accused a reporter and a photographer of threatening his life.

    Where’s the Lawsuit ?

    and this bull he didn’t go to the cops… you can’t report a story that hasn’t run to the cops. You can prevent it from printing it by doing what he did, but you damn well better have all your ducks in a row when you do or you’ll be suid into bankruptcy which huh for some reason hasn’t happened……

  59. This is a great big nothingburger of a story. Anyone can say anything if they are citing anonymous sources or claiming something was about to happen but didn’t. If something never appeared how can you ever know that it was going to appear ! Its a bit like that old poem about seeing the man on the stairs who wasn’t there 🙂

  60. Carlson Made this allegation yesterday, and now you are asking less than 24 hours later where is the lawsuit from the NYT?

    Do you know how anything works?

  61. The NYTs was about to dox Carlson and they got hit with a preemptive strike by FOX

    Here’s what we know to be fact:

    Carlson accused the NYT of preparing to publish his home address despite offering no evidence whatsoever of his claims.

    Carlson has named people in his unverified claims, allegedly inciting his followers to attack them.

    There’s a pending sexual misconduct case at FOX involving Carlson coming up

    Carlson has published misleading stories in the past.

    Those are the facts of what we know. I know which way I would be persuaded.

    The truth or untruth is completely unknowable to anyone here at this time

    So whay are you giving ‘Tucker the benefit of your doubt’ by appealing to ignorance and suggesting that because it hasn’t happened it doesn’t mean it wasn’t going to and wildly (and baselessly) speculating that he may have had an insider in the NYT?

  62. We don’t know anything about the charge that was made yesterday.

    Let’s see where the facts take us.

  63. We don’t know anything about the charge that was made yesterday

    Yes, so let me repeat my questions:

    So why are you giving ‘Tucker the benefit of your doubt’ by appealing to ignorance and suggesting that because it hasn’t happened it doesn’t mean it wasn’t going to and wildly (and baselessly) speculating that he may have had an insider in the NYT?

  64. Carlson has made himself a public figure. Why is he entitled to such privacy? If he is concerned about safety of his family he should take appropriate measures funded by his generous earnings. He is a prima donna desperate for attention.

  65. So you endorse terroristic threats being made against his family at their home? Wow.

    It’s not theoretical, it has happened before.

  66. So you endorse terroristic threats being made against his family at their home? Wow

    The fact of the matter was that you ‘gave Tucker the benefit of the doubt’ invoking and agrgument ad ignorantium and absolutely fucking wild and completely baseless specualation that ‘maybe he had an insider in the NYC’

    His home was protested and vandalised two years ago? So what? It was wrong but it’s got absolutely fuck all to do with the matter at hand.

    It seems someone just has to say the magic ‘anteeefa’ word and your instinctive bias is triggered against you critical thinking and objective analysis.

  67. Phantom is a Tucker Carlson fan, like Troll, so it is no surprise that he defends him.

  68. I have praised him when he has been correct and I have criticized him when he’s been wrong.

    What do you do?

  69. Only on ATW can you say that the unknown facts are indeed not knowable at this time, and have the response be that ” you’re taking a side “!

  70. Nothing Carlson said was libelous, it was simply unprovable (and tremendously suspect) Still no already prepared rebuttal from Patrick to the link to Carlson prior falsehoods.

  71. Phantom – giving him the benefit of the doubt given his record and the circumstances is taking a side.

  72. Phantom, on June 5th, 2020 at 1:29 AM Said:
    This is post is disturbing

    It is also a first class piece of reporting and analysis, clearly and accurately explained.

    Carlson is the best opinion person on that station.

    Yes, you would never see this on any other major station. It would never be permitted.

    Also

    Phantom, on June 5th, 2020 at 1:36 AM Said:
    This is the type of concise commentary at the BBC or Sky or RTE should do when talking about this matter

    But it will never happen

    I am certain that there would be bad guys that would like to get Tucker Carlson fired.

    Again, this commentary is brave and exceptional, bravo.

    That’s a bit more than ‘I have praised him when he has been correct and I have criticized him when he’s been wrong.’ That’s pretty much a blanket endorsement, despite what he was saying being wrong.

    What do you do?

    I look at it objectively, hence my reply to your question on that same thread:

    Phantom, on June 5th, 2020 at 1:36 PM Said:
    Seimi

    Do you think that Tucker Carlson makes any good points here?

    Do you think that perspectives like this should be part of the discussion

    Serious question.

    my answer being;

    Seimi, on June 5th, 2020 at 2:48 PM Said:
    Phantom

    I’ve only watched Tucker Carlson a couple of times. I find US news channels difficult to watch, as it seems that they are only partly interested in reporting the news, and more interested in pushing their own agendas, much of the time by attacking other media outlets. Every one of them seems to do this.
    That said, I agree with Carlson when he dismisses the ‘Genocide’ claim. What is happening in the USA is not genocide of Black people. What happened to the native population was genocide, and perhaps the people claiming a similar action against Blacks should examine the history of the American Indians before making such claims.

    I think that Carlson, who I’m assuming is regarded as a serious voice in news media, shouldspend more time fact-checking before broadcasting. The video of the woman getting on her knees is clearly fake, and for him to present it as serious and real is either extremely naive, or extremely disingenuous.
    I also disagree with his assertion that the trend of kneeling is one of submission, of the losing side. It’s recognised as a sign of solidarity, and shouldn’t be misrepresented as something else.
    I can’t comment on the stats he gave regarding police shootings, as I don’t have any of my own stats to either support or contend his. The one thing I did pick up is that they were all shootings. How different would the picture be if beatings and procedures like the knee on the neck were added? Would there be a big difference, or any difference at all? I don’t know.
    Should perspectives like this be heard? Yes, absolutely, but with the caveat that they are perspectives, opinions only, and with proper, thorough fact-checking done beforehand. The problem I see is that people take them as fact, as PaTroll did here, and his response is that unarmed protestors should have been shot. That is very, very dangerous. If even a tiny percentage of the American people feel as he does – and let’s not forget, he says that millions of them do – the USA could well be on the brink of something much, much worse.

    I hope that answers your questions?

  73. Carlson may have saved the US and world from an unwise war with Iran. I gave him high praise for that. He gave wise counsel to the idiot president. Who wouldn’t praise him for that?

    I have also criticized him for being a conspiracy guy, who has been tight with conspiracy guy Michael Savage, and who appeared on the Alex Jones show.

    At his best, he is exceptional. He is by far the best of the opinion guys on Fox, including because he is not always ” on script ” the way that Hannity and Ingraham are.

  74. Only on ATW can you say that the unknown facts are indeed not knowable at this time, and have the response be that ” you’re taking a side “!

    WHAT?

    So why are you giving ‘Tucker the benefit of your doubt’ by appealing to ignorance and suggesting that because it hasn’t happened it doesn’t mean it wasn’t going to and wildly (and baselessly) speculating that he may have had an insider in the NYT?

  75. He saved the World from an unwise war with Iran? Talk about the benefit of doubt.

  76. I realize that no one remembers anything here, but please

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=78760#comments

  77. Your guy is great. We get it.

  78. What has saving the world or having your house protested and vandalised got to do with writing an unsubstantiated claim allegedly inciting others to be attacked?

    Hitlet was a vegeterian and apparently loved dogs, should he get the benefit if the doubt too?

  79. Carlson helped talk the arsonist he helped put in the White House from causing a fire. Nobel Prize!

  80. Carlson has always as far as I know been an opponent of unnecessary military adventures. ( Iraq, Libya, etc )

    Unlike the Hillary Clinton that some here voted for.

  81. Oh Carlson, thy name is Tucker…

  82. Not to be unkind, but Carlson supported the Iraq War for over a year after it began. Like his fake accusations you can look it up.

  83. What’s it all got to do with him writing an unsubstantiated claim allegedly inciting others to be attacked?

  84. mahons

    Touche

    I had only known of him when he has been a loud anti interventionist, from when he was on MSNBC.

    I will still give him credit for being a voice for non intervention, who is now in the home station of the RNC, where his voice is listened to by those in power.

  85. Fuxake.

    This has become a biog on Carson rather than unpicking his unsubstantiated claims.

    Benefits of the doubt rule for past actions absolving you of present sins.

  86. It seems to be an American trend here now, that if you get called out on something, you just cease to engage, possibly in the hope that it will all go away…

  87. I will happily engage.

  88. You haven’t been called out on anything 🙂

  89. Ah.

  90. Yes, let’s have endless back and forth when there is difference of opinion.

    It’s always worked in the past, why not now.

  91. So

    Ummm…nice weather…

    Actually – just how powerful a voice is Carlson’s? Never mind the influence he may have had with Trump: how popular is he in America? And will this type of broadcast be taken seriously?

  92. The power of any one talking head has been diluted with the advent of some many. Gone are the days when a President might say as Nixon did, if I’ve lost Walter Cronkite I’ve lost the nation.

  93. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2020/06/30/tucker-carlson-has-highest-rated-program-in-cable-news-history/#3f4c166d6195

    He’s now the most popular opinion commentator on Fox News, with the highest ratings in cable news history.

    I would not have predicted this when he replaced the then popular Bill O’Reilly, but there you are.

  94. Yes, let’s have endless back and forth when there is difference of opinion.

    It’s always worked in the past, why not now.

    Phantom, you’re as guilty of such behaviour as anyone else, but not usually when you are on the receiving end, though to be fair, what you call ‘endless back and forth’, others might call ‘disagreeing with your statements and providing evidence to back it up,’ or ‘proving you are wrong.’

  95. Correct

    The average American never watches Fox News.

    The average American under 40 has probably never watched them.

    Same with CNN.

  96. The saturation of TV channels is bound to dilute the voices. To be the top-rted in such an ocean is an achievement, but still the fact-checking thing seems to dog even the most popular.

  97. The veracity of Carlson’s charge remains unknown and unknowable at the present time, and a thousand or hundred thousand rapid response comments won’t change that.

  98. You’re still a fan though, yes?

  99. The provability remains unknown. The veracity is unlikely.
    Jon Stewart was right when he said Carlson was engaged in political theater.

  100. What does to ‘give someone the benefit of the doubt’ mean?

    Between that and your argument ad ignorantium and your wild and absolutely baseless speculation of how he may have had an insider at the NYT you seem to have a funny interpretation of unknown.

    But then again, he did say ‘anteeefa’

  101. There are no good cable TV news channels in the US.

    The opinion guys are completely dominant on Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

    And as said before many times, these channels quote literally do not report the news for the US, and god help us outside of the US. Its all Republicans and Democrats cops and robbers.

  102. Yeah, but you’re still a fan of Carlson’s, yeah?

  103. I’m going with the old law of evidence maxim, quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur , and state that he’s talking balls.

    If anyone disagrees disprove it

  104. Is it now illegal to be a fan of Tucker Carlson?

  105. Who said that, Charles?

  106. No. Just illogical.

  107. the lack of a personal Lawsuit against Carlson by the Reporter and the Photographer proves the story true.

    In our society everyone sues.

    Tucker is an Opinion Show.

    The News is on at 6pm EST Special Report with Bret Baier. An hour long show that covers the days news and a half hour of the Show is a Panel with 2 Liberal Democrats and 2 Conservative Republicans…. if you count Baier as one but I’m really not sure what his politics are.

    But 2 and 2 an even BALANCED VIEW.

  108. You are implying it Seimi with your repeated browbeating of Phantom over the issue. He likes Tucker Carlson. So what’s it to you mate?

  109. The lack of a personal Lawsuit against Carlson by the Reporter and the Photographer proves the story true

    No it doesn’t.

  110. Carlson I believe only made the claim last night.

    Even in sue-happy USA, it would not be realistic to expect a lawsuit from a supposedly aggrieved party in less than 24 hours

  111. You are implying it Seimi with your repeated browbeating of Phantom over the issue.

    I’m implying nothing of the sort, Charles. My ‘browbeating’ of Phantom has to do with his defence of Carlson, based on his possible ‘moles’ at the New York Times and other invented variables. I based my ‘browbeating’ of him on previous comments he made, praising Carlson, but I don’t think for one minute that liking Carlson should be illegal.

    He likes Tucker Carlson.

    Oh, I know.

    So what’s it to you mate

    It’s absolutely nothing to me, mate. But I think phantom is big enough and ugly enough to take a few questions regarding his comments here, and I’m sure he would be just as robust in his ‘browbeating’ of anyone else who said something he didn’t agree with.

  112. it would have been todays banner headline in the Times if it was coming.

    They knew before the show aired he called them during the day and they had time to post a denial in Wapo and hide the reporter and photographer.

  113. The lack of a personal Lawsuit against Carlson by the Reporter and the Photographer proves the story true

    I thought the paper denied the story before Carlson’s broadcast? If they did, then did he not leave himself wide open for a lawsuit?

    If there was a lawsuit already in progress, I think the Guinness Book of Records should be informed!

  114. BTW Troll

    Have you now finished your ‘rant’ in the other post? You seem to have had time to post other pieces, as well as comment, but you haven’t commented on your own post in a while. Why is that?

  115. It would have been todays banner headline in the Times if it was true coming

  116. Seimi, We’re in agreement that Phantom is big and ugly enough to take care of himself. My larger point, and that which gets under my skin, is the majority on ATW seems to be constantly applying litmus tests to people. When people talk bollocks, yes, that’s grounds for debate. But that doesn’t mean it should be open season on people you disagree with. If I like Trump, fine, if Phantom, likes Carlson, fine.

  117. The Times put the denial of it on their Twitter account. The Washington Post published the denial. A lawsuit against Carlson would have been frivolous. There was nothing actionable in his nonsense.

  118. He can like him. We can point out what is unlikeable.

  119. Charles, if people want to like Tucker Carlson then that’s entirely up to them. This is me being ‘open season’ on Phantom:

    The truth or untruth is completely unknowable to anyone here at this time

    So whay are you giving ‘Tucker the benefit of your doubt’ by appealing to ignorance and suggesting that because it hasn’t happened it doesn’t mean it wasn’t going to and wildly (and baselessly) speculating that he may have had an insider in the NYT?

    I think it wholly dishonest to say the truth or untruth is unknowable and then to support the speaker of the truth or untruth.

    I think it’s a legit enough position?

  120. Mahons. Notice you said “we” can point out. You girls are like a twitter mob stuck in groupthink.

  121. My larger point, and that which gets under my skin, is the majority on ATW seems to be constantly applying litmus tests to people.

    Yeah Charles, I’m well aware of it. I’m one of the small group here who, when debates get heated, are labelled ‘the IRA supporters,’ or ‘the Rabid Republicans’ or even recently, ‘the Northern Irish Contingent.’

    This is a blog site, where people come to debate different topics (although these days, the topics aren’t all that different!). For the most part, these debates should be conducted in a polite, respectful manner, but on ATW, I don’t think that happens very often, and the reason, I believe, is that we know each other too well.
    We’re a small group, and we all know each others’ collective buttons, and exactly when and how to push them, meaning that even the most bland discussion is apt to turn into an insult-fuelled shitstorm.
    The litmus paper you’re looking at is touch paper. It’s a fuse.

  122. Thank you Seimi. At least you see where I’m coming from. OK, I’ve had MY rant I suppose!

  123. Charles – for a non-homophobe using girls as a put down is probably not proper etiquette. However you’ve long been one of ATW’s few conservative voices of decency so no worries my dear.

  124. Thank you Mahons!

  125. I’m late to this party, but hey what a bunch of dried up bitchy old sluts you’ve all been on this thread..

    How’s that for insulting sexism … oh and ageism ? 😉

  126. ATW is crying out for a portland thread, bound to be some bitch-slapping on that one colm
    its a good day to be a mom in portland, and bring a brolly .
    looks like portland mums with umbrella vs Robocops without signia, unmarked cars is
    1-0 portland mums

  127. https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1285788849352798210

    The “Wall of Moms” just arrived at the federal courthouse, and their numbers have grown substantially once again.

    Be certain this takes out and undermines absolutely and destroys the propaganda perpetrated by a small few here .
    where they want to see thugs gangs looters blacks riots instead we have majority white mothers with brollies on the streets peacefully protesting against their sons being given trumped up ridiculous charges by the dozen ..

    A Nightmare and a disaster is this for Trump and the satans lil helpers here on ATW

  128. kurt

    Those mum are violent militant Antifa fanatics attacking meek and mild Federal community police officers 🙂

  129. d’oh colm that’ll teach me to tune into the fake propoganda liberal luvvies news media
    I knew i should have watch Alex Jones first to get the truth in the information war 😉

  130. Never worry Colm.

    If they’re not that that’s what they’ll become anyway.

  131. //ATW is crying out for a portland thread,//

    Portland, what’s going on in sleepy Dorset?

    Maybe the Chesil Beach film brought some new interest in this sleepy corner of England.

    No, what ATW is crying out for is a post on the report of Russian interference in UK affairs. Normally Pete’s sphere, you’d imagine, but he seems to be more concerned with matters in distant places like the US and EU.

  132. The leader of ‘Anteeefa’ in Oregan:

    https://img.sharetv.com/shows/standard/portland_bill.jpg

  133. yes Noel, its been number one story for 24 hours on all media
    oh wait up, it criticises the Rooskies .. ahh that would explain its absence
    boiling rage at public sector pay got the nod . Selah

  134. What ATW is crying out for is a post on the report of Russian interference in UK affairs

    Yes, in the wake the Russian interferance report being released they’re going to remake the classic Bond filum:

    ‘From Russia, With Leave’

  135. actually no reason not to combine the two
    ship portand mums to anchorage and provide bins lids ( as well as brollies ) to stamp the ground. they’re near Russia and protests could be heard from listening devices by russian state actors.
    Never miss an opportunity 😉