Hannity Offers
-
Of course I have a point. You're just too drunk to notice it.
The point is that no American journalist has interviewed Putin since this war started. And it is THIS war.
Crimea actually has a thin gauze of credibility, although Putin was wrong. This latest iteration has no rational explanation for invasion.
So, whether you like Tucker's interview or not, whether you think it's all softballs or not, Tucker did interview Putin. Putin gave out his side of the story, even if he lied his ass off.
Maybe now it's the job of American media to dissect Putin's answers and show where he's wrong.
-
Of course I have a point. You're just too drunk to notice it.
The point is that no American journalist has interviewed Putin since this war started. And it is THIS war.
Really now? I seem to recall having last had a Guinness or two well over a month ago but that’s neither here nor there. Pretty much teetotal as far life goes the past several or so years. But I get it, that’s how you roll.
But to the discussion at hand; THIS war to which you referring started in 2014.
You have just proven once again that you have no point to make in this discussion.
Well, you just go right ahead and believe what you want. It is of no consequence.
-
So now you say it’s about the consequences of your tax dollars.
Here, all along, I thought this particular conversation was about Americans who have, in addition to Tucker Carlson, interviewed Putin. At least, that was your question and I gave you a factual answer. Silly me, but I don’t believe any tax dollars went to either Oliver Stone or Tucker Carlson in the production of their interviews.
Again, all you’ve demonstrated is that you have no point to make on the matter of interviews with Putin.
-
I get it that you’re an apologist for Tucker Carlson. Certainly one or possibly two others here that are as well. In your case you wish to make the Putin interview into a great coup for conservative American journalism. It wasn’t. Your man was wholly unprepared for the encounter. It was like its predecessor, Oliver Stone’s 4 hour whitewashing and kowtowing to the “great dictator”, an embarrassment. The only difference is that FuCa, the professional journalist he is, made a thorough ass of himself in less than half the time as the dilettante conspiracy theory enthusiast and part time movie director, Oliver Stone. The end result was the same for both; embarrassing attempts at journalism.
So go right ahead and offer a manure spreader full of apologetics for FuCa. It is, as I already said, of no consequence.
As for Carlson, I am, like Doctor Phibes, convinced he is an abject cunt.
-
There is a fact that Putin talked to him in an unscripted long form interview. No other journalist was given that opportunity. Of course you can see it as Tucker being just the sort of useful idiot that Putin would talk to, but I don't buy that the world is a worse place because the interview occurred, or because Tucker spewed some nonsense while in Russia. The question isn't a referendum on whether Tucker could be more to anybody's taste, it's whether Tucker, for all his faults, served a useful purpose here to someone other than Putin and himself. Personally I am glad the interview took place, though of course it wasn't a game changer to any extent.
Education is extremely important.
-
The question isn't a referendum on whether Tucker could be more to anybody's taste, it's whether Tucker, for all his faults, served a useful purpose here to someone other than Putin and himself.
Must have been to Carlson, himself. His lack of preparedness and any apparent interview skill certainly didn’t serve any useful purpose to enhance the reputation of American journalism.
-
Remember the famous Walter Cronkite interview of Adolf Hitler?
The Tucker thing wouldn't have been quite as bad if he hadn't spent the previous months questioning why we were so pro Ukraine. I seem to think he once described Putin as a defender of traditional Christian values.
Presumably, by 'traditional Christian values' he wasn't referring to crucifixion.
I was only joking
-
Personally I am glad the interview took place, though of course it wasn't a game changer to any extent.
Many people are dancing around the benefits of Carlson's interview. He is encouraging Americans to re-examine their personal and tribal foundational beliefs and principles. Tucker's nascent appreciation of the benefits of Socialism may lead Americans to question their fear of Socialism - something heretofore repudiated and vilified by the right.
-
Personally I am glad the interview took place, though of course it wasn't a game changer to any extent.
Many people are dancing around the benefits of Carlson's interview. He is encouraging Americans to re-examine their personal and tribal foundational beliefs and principles. Tucker's nascent appreciation of the benefits of Socialism may lead Americans to question their fear of Socialism - something heretofore repudiated and vilified by the right.
@kluurs said in Hannity Offers:
Personally I am glad the interview took place, though of course it wasn't a game changer to any extent.
Many people are dancing around the benefits of Carlson's interview. He is encouraging Americans to re-examine their personal and tribal foundational beliefs and principles. Tucker's nascent appreciation of the benefits of Socialism may lead Americans to question their fear of Socialism - something heretofore repudiated and vilified by the right.
I think it would be difficult to trace back any of Tucker's appreciation for certain details of Russia to socialism. Authoritarianism maybe.
Education is extremely important.
-
There is a fact that Putin talked to him in an unscripted long form interview. No other journalist was given that opportunity. Of course you can see it as Tucker being just the sort of useful idiot that Putin would talk to, but I don't buy that the world is a worse place because the interview occurred, or because Tucker spewed some nonsense while in Russia. The question isn't a referendum on whether Tucker could be more to anybody's taste, it's whether Tucker, for all his faults, served a useful purpose here to someone other than Putin and himself. Personally I am glad the interview took place, though of course it wasn't a game changer to any extent.
@Horace said in Hannity Offers:
There is a fact that Putin talked to him in an unscripted long form interview. No other journalist was given that opportunity. Of course you can see it as Tucker being just the sort of useful idiot that Putin would talk to, but I don't buy that the world is a worse place because the interview occurred, or because Tucker spewed some nonsense while in Russia. The question isn't a referendum on whether Tucker could be more to anybody's taste, it's whether Tucker, for all his faults, served a useful purpose here to someone other than Putin and himself. Personally I am glad the interview took place, though of course it wasn't a game changer to any extent.
How is it you can see this most salient of points, but our Northern neighbor has totally overlooked it?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Remember the famous Walter Cronkite interview of Adolf Hitler?
The Tucker thing wouldn't have been quite as bad if he hadn't spent the previous months questioning why we were so pro Ukraine. I seem to think he once described Putin as a defender of traditional Christian values.
Presumably, by 'traditional Christian values' he wasn't referring to crucifixion.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Hannity Offers:
Remember the famous Walter Cronkite interview of Adolf Hitler?
No, but I remember the famous Peter Arnett interview of bin Laden.
-
@Horace said in Hannity Offers:
There is a fact that Putin talked to him in an unscripted long form interview. No other journalist was given that opportunity. Of course you can see it as Tucker being just the sort of useful idiot that Putin would talk to, but I don't buy that the world is a worse place because the interview occurred, or because Tucker spewed some nonsense while in Russia. The question isn't a referendum on whether Tucker could be more to anybody's taste, it's whether Tucker, for all his faults, served a useful purpose here to someone other than Putin and himself. Personally I am glad the interview took place, though of course it wasn't a game changer to any extent.
How is it you can see this most salient of points, but our Northern neighbor has totally overlooked it?
@Jolly said in Hannity Offers:
@Horace said in Hannity Offers:
There is a fact that Putin talked to him in an unscripted long form interview. No other journalist was given that opportunity. Of course you can see it as Tucker being just the sort of useful idiot that Putin would talk to, but I don't buy that the world is a worse place because the interview occurred, or because Tucker spewed some nonsense while in Russia. The question isn't a referendum on whether Tucker could be more to anybody's taste, it's whether Tucker, for all his faults, served a useful purpose here to someone other than Putin and himself. Personally I am glad the interview took place, though of course it wasn't a game changer to any extent.
How is it you can see this most salient of points, but our Northern neighbor has totally overlooked it?
Not overlooked it, but rather disregarded it.
Why? Because it’s what you, the apologist, want to believe about the interview. That and the fact that like your apologetics for Carlson, it is of little if any consequence.
Elbows up!
-
@kluurs said in Hannity Offers:
Personally I am glad the interview took place, though of course it wasn't a game changer to any extent.
Many people are dancing around the benefits of Carlson's interview. He is encouraging Americans to re-examine their personal and tribal foundational beliefs and principles. Tucker's nascent appreciation of the benefits of Socialism may lead Americans to question their fear of Socialism - something heretofore repudiated and vilified by the right.
I think it would be difficult to trace back any of Tucker's appreciation for certain details of Russia to socialism. Authoritarianism maybe.
@Horace said in Hannity Offers:
@kluurs said in Hannity Offers:
Personally I am glad the interview took place, though of course it wasn't a game changer to any extent.
Many people are dancing around the benefits of Carlson's interview. He is encouraging Americans to re-examine their personal and tribal foundational beliefs and principles. Tucker's nascent appreciation of the benefits of Socialism may lead Americans to question their fear of Socialism - something heretofore repudiated and vilified by the right.
I think it would be difficult to trace back any of Tucker's appreciation for certain details of Russia to socialism.
AuthoritarianismStalinism maybe.He loved the Stalin era architecture of the downtown Metro stations. I bet too he was awe struck by the towering wedding cake skyscrapers Stalin bequeathed the city.
-
@Horace said in Hannity Offers:
If Hitler had reached out for an interview, would Cronkite have said no?
The question you should ask is whether Cronkite would have asked him tough questions, or whether, like Carlson, he'd allow him to ramble on for the most part unchallenged.
Obviously, Carlson isn't really a journalist any more than is Jon Stewart.
-
@Horace said in Hannity Offers:
If Hitler had reached out for an interview, would Cronkite have said no?
The question you should ask is whether Cronkite would have asked him tough questions, or whether, like Carlson, he'd allow him to ramble on for the most part unchallenged.
Obviously, Carlson isn't really a journalist any more than is Jon Stewart.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Hannity Offers:
@Horace said in Hannity Offers:
If Hitler had reached out for an interview, would Cronkite have said no?
The question you should ask is whether Cronkite would have asked him tough questions, or whether, like Carlson, he'd allow him to ramble on for the most part unchallenged.
Obviously, Carlson isn't really a journalist any more than is Jon Stewart.
I am sure you will get the sort of questioning you are after when he is prosecuted for war crimes, and he is on the stand. Failing that, I don't think many of us subscribe to any journalist-as-hero narratives.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Hannity Offers:
@Horace said in Hannity Offers:
If Hitler had reached out for an interview, would Cronkite have said no?
The question you should ask is whether Cronkite would have asked him tough questions, or whether, like Carlson, he'd allow him to ramble on for the most part unchallenged.
Obviously, Carlson isn't really a journalist any more than is Jon Stewart.
I am sure you will get the sort of questioning you are after when he is prosecuted for war crimes, and he is on the stand. Failing that, I don't think many of us subscribe to any journalist-as-hero narratives.
@Horace said in Hannity Offers:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Hannity Offers:
@Horace said in Hannity Offers:
If Hitler had reached out for an interview, would Cronkite have said no?
The question you should ask is whether Cronkite would have asked him tough questions, or whether, like Carlson, he'd allow him to ramble on for the most part unchallenged.
Obviously, Carlson isn't really a journalist any more than is Jon Stewart.
I am sure you will get the sort of questioning you are after when he is prosecuted for war crimes, and he is on the stand. Failing that, I don't think many of us subscribe to any journalist-as-hero narratives.
Chances are Putin will never stand trial for his war crimes. To expect otherwise is wishful thinking.
As for anyone here subscribing to journalist-as-hero narratives, I should think you know better. Phibes is not suggesting that and nor am I. What we are stating is that Carlson didn’t do his job when the opportunity was presented to him on a silver platter. I attribute his failure to negligence stemming from a lack of competence as a journalist. Nothing more.
-
I saw Hitler
Thompson's most significant work abroad took place in Germany in the early 1930s.[2] In Munich, Thompson met and interviewed Adolf Hitler for the first time in 1931. This would be the basis for her subsequent book, I Saw Hitler, in which she wrote about the dangers of him winning power in Germany.[1] Later, in a Harper's Magazine article in December 1934, Thompson described Hitler in the following terms: "He is formless, almost faceless, a man whose countenance is a caricature, a man whose framework seems cartilaginous, without bones. He is inconsequent and voluble, ill poised and insecure. He is the very prototype of the little man."
