What sorts of things are citizens told...

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2022

...if they watch Tucker Carlson Tonight? What sorts of things are people told if they watch Tucker Carlson Tonight?

Last night, they were told that Secretary of State Tony Blinken has acknowledged a shocking fact. 

According to Carlson's opening monologue, Blinken has directly said that the Nord Stream pipeline was destroyed, just last week, by the United States. There's no mistaking what Blinken has said, Carlson told millions of viewers.

You can watch Carlson's monologue here, or read the entire transcript. Below, you see the deranged part of the exposition to which we have referred:

CARLSON (10/3/22): Tony Blinken, by contrast, is not an expert. He's a failed rock musician who somehow became the secretary of state of the United States. 

He's, of course, happy to lie, does it a lot. But he's not especially good at it. 

At the beginning of last week, Blinken was pretending to be baffled by the sabotage of Nord Stream. No one benefits from this, he said. Not in a million years could he imagine. Who would do something like that? It was just unfathomable. 

That was Tuesday. By Friday, Blinken had dropped the pose and admitted that actually, we did it. 

Now, Tony Blinken didn't use quite those words, but there was no mistaking what he meant. 

"Blinken didn't use quite those words?" It's hard to argue with that admission by Carlson! In fact, here's the videotaped statement Carlson aired as he continued his monologue:

CARLSON: Now, Tony Blinken didn't use quite those words, but there was no mistaking what he meant. Watch.

BLINKEN (videotape): It's a tremendous opportunity to, once and for all, remove the dependance on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. That's very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come. 

CARLSON: Now we don't have a super long attention span, but this was pretty compressed in the space of like four days. So last Tuesday, the largest act of industrial terrorism in our lifetimes was a baffling crime, said Tony Blinken, but by Friday, that same event had become "a tremendous opportunity," in fact, a tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come. It's a good thing. 

Now, that's an admission. That's the clearest admission we're ever going to get. No one could miss it, least of all the Russians. 

Stating the obvious, Blinken made no "admission" of any kind in the statement Carlson aired. In the excerpt Carlson provided, it isn't even all that clear what Blinken was talking about.

Despite these blindingly obvious facts, Carlson's viewers were told that they'd just seen Blinken admit that it was the United States which sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines. Blinken had said no such thing, but that's what viewers were told.

You can't run a large, modern nation in this deranged, idiotic way. To all intents and purposes, our nation has ceased to exist. 

Carlson's deranged behavior should be front page news. But even after all these decades, it still just simply isn't. 

"There was no mistaking what [Blinken] meant!" So said this deeply disordered lost boy as millions of citizens watched.


67 comments:


  1. Oh, get over it, dear Bob. Everyone knows the US did it. Here's Jeffrey Sachs saying it:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyUDT1_qusw

    Jeffrey Sachs: Rest Of The World Thinks The U.S. Probably Sabotaged The Nord Stream Pipeline, But It Doesn't Show Up In Our Media

    You, your blog, dear Bob, should be praising, should be admiring the excellent Tucker Carlson for reporting this tremendously important news that everyone else in the establishment media is silent about.

    And what do you do, dear Bob? Brain-dead dembottery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the UN Security Council, ten countries voted to condemn Russia's "annexation" of eastern Ukraine:

      Albania
      France
      Ghana
      Ireland
      Kenya
      Mexico
      Norway
      United Arab Emirates
      United Kingdom
      United States

      Four abstained:
      Brazil
      China
      Gabon
      India

      One voted no:
      Russia

      Delete
    2. To state the obvious, no one knows who blew up the pipeline. Isn't it ironic that Dimbot Mao, who accuses liberals/Dems of always echoing the party line, always echoes the Tucker line? He thinks the election was stolen, for chrissake. Now, he swallows whole the unproven (and extremely unlikely) claim that the U.S. blew up the pipeline. (And yes, I'm aware of what Biden said about the pipeline. That doesn't mean he had in mind blowing it up!) If anyone wants a very well-informed account of why no one knows who did it and why there are more plausible theories than Mao's, I highly recommend checking this out this bit of brilliant independent media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUxJbjAnU4Q

      Delete

    3. We're still waiting for your simple line of reasoning to demonstrate that 10 seconds before his birth fetus is not a child, dear dembot.

      Once we're done with that, we'll be ready to hear about your other amazing discoveries.

      Delete
    4. Or that gender is like a pair of socks.

      Delete
    5. And we're still waiting for you to answer whether you would save the life of a fetus or a 10 year old if you had to choose. We're also waiting to see all that conclusive evidence that the election was stolen.

      Delete
    6. When was I asked that about a ten-year-old?

      Ive said several times that Ive never seen proof the election was stolen. Neither had Hilary when she claimed hers was “hacked”.

      But to quote Bob- What are you asking about the young girl?

      If you’re asking if I would save the baby over the biological life of the ten-year-old. I’d save the mother.

      Delete
    7. It’s best to specifically reference the name or non-name/post-time of the person being addressed.

      I’m guilty of not always doing that too.

      Delete
    8. @4:45 -- Not so about Hillary, but why expect you to know what you're talking about?

      Delete
    9. @ Mao, a fetus has not drawn a single breath before his birth.

      Delete
    10. @ Mao, there is no evidence that a fetus who has not yet drawn a breath will ever do so. Some are stillborn and do not start breathing despite efforts to help them.

      Delete
    11. @4:33 PM,
      Why don't you keep your sick fantasies to yourself, dear dembot.

      As for "conclusive evidence", as we remember you were claiming that you have tons of evidence that the election wasn't falsified.
      So, now you don't?

      ...but if you insist, here: https://electionfraud20.org/
      Go ahead, prove them wrong.

      Delete
    12. Ha ha, Mao calls a standard sort of ethics question a "sick fantasy". That may be because they don't study ethics in Russia.

      Delete
    13. Anonymouse5:00pm

      Hillary said that Russia was into our voter rolls.

      https://youtu.be/uoMfIkz7v6s

      Watch it all.

      Delete
    14. it's ok that you copped out, dear dimbot. we already know the answer anyway. regarding evidence about the election, when you lose every one of about 60 different cases in court nationwide (except one regarding a tangential technical matter), with both dem and repub judges, some appointed by trump himself, that's all the evidence normal people need. as for your "evidence" that it was stolen, it's been fact-checked and debunked over and over. but "don't. stop. beleeeeeving" dear dimbot.

      Delete
    15. I'm not going to argue with you about what Russia did in the last election. We took sanctions against Russia because of their confirmed meddling. You can take your links somewhere else.

      Delete
    16. Well, YOU engaged me about my post, Anonmouse6:05pm.

      Delete
    17. I said that you were saying incorrect things about Hilary Clinton. You don't have to reply to every comment, you know. It would be better if you didn't. I don't want to go down the conservative rabbit hole over what Russia did and didn't do during the election, but our government sanctioned Russia for its meddling, which suggests they know who did what, and that agrees with Hillary's version of events, not yours.

      Delete
    18. Mike L -- there is no reason to engage with Mao. He is not a real person but a persistent troll. No one here cares what he says.

      Delete
    19. Cecelia,
      Finding the proof the election was stolen is a lot like finding proof there is a Republican voter who isn't a bigot. Lots of people swear by it, but no one has a shred of proof.

      Delete

    20. @6:03 PM
      We're still waiting for your simple line of reasoning, dear dembot.

      ...and of course we're greatly surprised -- astonished! -- by your sudden and seemingly inexplicable loss of interest in the evidence you craved so much just a few hours ago...

      Delete
    21. Mao,
      For real fun, try debating a Right-winger. You can usually get them to disagree with their main premise in less than 2 minutes.
      Their cries about how they hate welfare, because they believe in merit is a classic.

      Delete
    22. You're more of a dimbot than I suspected. The line of reasoning was provided at the beginning. If even the religiously anti-choice crowd would end the life of a fetus if forced to choose between a fetus and an actual child, then clearly the fetus is not the equivalent of a child.
      As for your "evidence," it's a joke. It's been debunked. Here's one example of some of the debunking that has taken place: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/2000-mules-offers-least-convincing-election-fraud-theory-yet/
      Do you honestly think that if they had ACTUAL evidence, it wouldn't have been presented in a court of law by now? The "stop the steal" dimbots have shown no hesitancy to file lawsuits regarding the election.

      Delete
    23. When we're talking about a ten year old new factors come into play in the moral analysis just like they do when we drop atomic bombs.

      Now do the cases that account for 99% of the genocide of the unborn. Choosing between allowing an adult woman who chose to risk pregnancy to legally kill the human she created or prohibiting. I'm all for prohibiting, and imprisoning the doctor who killed or tried to kill her baby. A million lives a year saved.

      Delete
    24. "If even the religiously anti-choice crowd would end the life of a fetus if forced to choose between a fetus and an actual child, then clearly the fetus is not the equivalent of a child."

      Eh ...what? Is this what you call a "simple line of reasoning", dear dembot?

      Once again, why don't you keep your homicidal fantasies to yourself? We're not interested.

      "As for your "evidence," it's a joke. It's been debunked."

      Is that what the Infallible Liberal Pope tells you?

      Delete
    25. Copping out again, dear dimbot? We know why.

      Delete
  2. “Stating the obvious, Blinken made no "admission" of any kind in the statement Carlson aired. In the excerpt Carlson provided, it isn't even all that clear what Blinken was talking about”

    Oh, it’s not in the least “clear” that the U.S. was involved in blowing up Nord Stream.

    To my thinking, it’s also not at all clear that the U.S. doing that is a wrong move, rather than a tremendously perilous, but necessary one.

    it is entirely clear that Blinken’s statements are correct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pipeline was not operational prior to the explosions. There was no likelihood of it becoming operational either. That deal was dead. No one needed to cause the leaks to prevent it from operating. Once the pipeline has been inspected, it should be possible to determine if explosions were involved, or some other cause. Until then, it makes little sense to speculate about who might have had motive or means to damage it.

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 5:05pm, I didn’t speculate that we had blown up the pipeline.

      I said that there is no evidence of that, but it would not necessarily be a wrong move if there was evidence that we had done it.

      It makes perfect sense to talk about the good consequences of it being gone. Just as Mr. Blinken did.

      Delete
    3. You think it is OK to blow up a pipeline in Europe? We aren't at war with Germany or Russia or anyone else there. It makes no sense that we would blow up a non-operational pipeline that was in no danger of being used, for no good reason (except to provide propaganda value to Russia?).

      Delete

  3. ...speaking of that Carlson show, do you have anything to say, dear Bob, about the episode with Glenn Greenwald?

    Does any of your dembot talking heads invite Greenwald? Never mind, just kidding.

    Glenn Greenwald: No One Trying To Deescalate Nuclear War With Russia Out Of Fear Of Being Called Unpatriotic.

    Any thoughts, dear Bob?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey stupid, Somerby does not respond to questions from the comments section. Unless you think he is posting here…

      Cecelia, do you also endorse Mao’s position that the election was stolen?

      Bob may be right that Carlson’s idiocy should be front page news (though he is rooting for Russia in the war, after all), but if he paid any attention to Fox he would find something equally obnoxious and stupid almost every day….

      Delete
    2. “Cecelia, do you also endorse Mao’s position that the election was stolen?”

      Not only have I answered this question many times, I have answered it right above your post.

      YOU couldn’t make you people up.

      Delete
    3. Given that the media has a 1st amendment right to say what it wants, on what basis should any newspaper call out Carlson for his opinions? People have the right to lie, say wrong things, be ignorant buffoons, express all sorts of ridiculous views, all protected by our constitution. Why then, should any paper report on it?

      Then there is the problem that reporting what Carlson says tends to spread his disinformation, even if it is debunked. Carlson will start saying "as reported in the NY Times, Blinken was accused of admitting that the US blew up the pipeline," and similar nonsense that will fool the unwary into thinking the Times agreed instead of disputing Carlson.

      Notice that once again Somerby does not call Carlson a dirty rotten liar. He calls him a poor lost boy instead, as if he had a legitimate excuse to spread Russian disinformation. Poor poor Tucker. Is Somerby afraid of alienating his conservative fan base if he says Tucker is responsible for aiding a longstanding enemy of our country?

      Delete
    4. Somerby has written whole blogs on the term “lie” and here you are MischaracterizIng about his motives.

      Delete
    5. As if you know his motives any better than I do. You are a conservative troll who is here to reinforce the damage he does every day. You need to stop pretending to be a real person and accept responsibility for your own cretinous dissembling.

      Delete
    6. Yes, Anonymouse5:52pm, trolling a blog happens when you concur with the blogger, don’t call him names, level mean personal insults against him and charge that he’s in the pay of a foreign dictator.

      Anonymouse thinking in a nutshell.

      Delete
    7. No, you drop little tidbits of Republican bias and memes here, like little turds. You reinterpret Somerby in your own terms and put words in his mouth that he didn't say, and then claim speak for him, as you are doing now. Others here are not saying the same things as I am, so it is wrong to blame all anonymous commenters and it is annoying that you persist in calling people rodents. I realize you think that is cute, but there is nothing more Republican than owning libs and your lack of civility is one of the most unattractive aspects of your presence here. You have no idea how other anonymous commenters think, yet you are willing to call them names too. What a nasty piece of work you are.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 7:33pm, congratulations.

      You’ve just rendered up the best example of projection on the planet.

      Delete
    9. As if you know what the word means…

      Delete
    10. Cecelia, I guess a simple yes or no won’t do. You have never answered the question, and don’t here.

      Delete
  4. "You can't run a large, modern nation in this deranged, idiotic way. To all intents and purposes, our nation has ceased to exist. "

    Blinken didn't say anything deranged. It was Carlson who said deranged things, and he does not "run" our nation. So how does Somerby's conclusion, that our nation has ceased to exist, follow from anything in this excerpt of Carlson's show. Carlson has nothing to do with running our nation and our nation is certainly still existant and running fine.

    Is it helpful when Somerby says deranged things about a deranged person like Carlson? I can't see how it benefits anyone when he makes these histrionic remarks based on nothing whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We’d see how deranged that theory was with both you and Bob if Trump had been in the same scenario.

      Delete
    2. You beg the question, how ridiculous would garbage from Fox have to be for it to be made an issue of?

      Delete
    3. Do you agree with Somerby that "our nation has ceased to exist"? It was there the last time I looked.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse4:52pm, in the scenario with Trump, it would be the entire MSM.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 4:52pm, Bob means that figuratively. For example parents and their offspring can live together and it can be more like a war zone than a family setting.

      Yes, Somerby is right. We’re in trouble.

      Delete
    6. Yes, we're in terrible, terrible trouble. Right here in River City, with a capital T and that stands for trouble, trouble, trouble. My friends, are you unaware of the danger represented by the presence of a pool table in right here in our community?

      There is no figurative meaning in which our country could be said to have ceased to exist. The Republicans love to scare their voters. Somerby uses doom and gloom scare tactics here, day in and day out, with no greater specificity than today, and yet we are sliding into the sea, we have ceased to exist he says!!!!!!! That is a silly and stupid as what Carlson says, and yet we let him get away with it every day, when our country is in about the same amount of trouble as it ever is, and our life goes on and we struggle and do the best we can, and our country still exists and we are still facing new difficulties. Because that is how life works.

      But you shrug and give him the benefit of the doubt while he tries to scare us stupid in exactly the same way as Carlson does his viewers. And Somerby says the NY Times should do something about it, while no one says a word in these comments about the utter and complete silliness of Somerby's TROUBLE TROUBLE TROUBLE!!!!!!

      Old mister excessively literal must be using figurative language Cecelia says. As if!

      Delete
    7. “As if” such distinctions mattered to you.

      Delete
    8. It matters to me that Somerby says he is liberal and uses the tactics of conservatives here at this supposedly liberal blog. And you dismiss it as "figurative language". Are you a moron?

      Delete
    9. Yes, anonymouse5:31pm, Somerby literally meant we no longer exist as a nation.

      The USA is gone. Poof. Dissolved.

      Delete
    10. Right, since it makes no sense to consider that the USA is gone, and it is not figurative language, why did Somerby say it? My belief is that he is trying to generate a sense of urgency among voters that will drive them into the arms of Republican candidates, given that these are the people that promise all will be well, after creating a sense of crisis in their followers. The left isn't motivated by the same things. You have said nothing to dispute this Cecelia, other than try to convince us that Somerby is some sort of poet, which he obviously is not.

      Delete
    11. Bob is a treasonous Right-winger.
      Don't overthink it.

      Delete
    12. Anonymouse7:29pm, Lincoln did say it more poetically and less pessimistically than Bob, when Lincoln quoted scripture saying that a house divided against itself shall not stand, but it’s pretty much the same sentiment.

      Delete
    13. Context matters

      Delete
  5. ""There was no mistaking what [Blinken] meant!" So said this deeply disordered lost boy as millions of citizens watched."

    1. Carlson is not a boy and there is no evidence he is "deeply disordered" as opposed to opportunistic and unprincipled.

    2. Don't the millions of people who watch Carlson uncritically bear some responsibility for their credulity when it comes to the lies they hear there?

    3. Any of us could have determined that Blinken didn't say what Carlson said he did, without any prodding by Somerby. Why then, cannot the millions of viewers of Carlson's show do the same?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Glen Greenwald has no more credibility than Tucker Carlson.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "What sorts of things are citizens told..."

    How do we know that only citizens are watching Carlson? I'll bet he has a BIG Russian following...

    ReplyDelete
  8. “Given that the media has a 1st amendment right to say what it wants, on what basis should any newspaper call out Carlson for his opinions? People have the right to lie, say wrong things, be ignorant buffoons, express all sorts of ridiculous views, all protected by our constitution. Why then, should any paper report on it?”

    4:58… The First Amendment only protects speech from _government_ interference. In fact, people have been jailed for speaking their minds, by the government. See Eugene Debs. Once some thing has been said, it gives the government itself the right to prosecute. The First Amendment is supposed to protect the right to free speech. It clearly doesn’t. Look at Assange fer fuck’s sake, he’s not even a citizen, but we’re fucking him up because of his “free speech.” As has been noted, the 1st is weak tea. Not bad, but weak.

    However, if news orgs were actually concerned with the truth, they should be reporting media malfeasance. The corporate mainstream media will not call out their own, as Bob has shown many times. As in this case. As we all (should) know, we won’t know the truth about Nord until there’s evidence, which seems not forthcoming.

    And if it does, you have to “believe”the evidence provided by “experts.”

    On the “News.”

    Leroy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the news media considers Tucker Carlson "one of their own".

      Delete
  9. Here is a pretty good discussion of the contribution of mental illness to hate crimes:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/opinion/racism-mental-illness-us.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. In the recent takedown of a Russian oligarch who arranged to have his paramour give birth in the US, among the transactions discovered were roses sent to a certain unnamed TV media personality. Gotta wonder what Fox personality was on the receiving end of those gifts. Carlson knows exactly what he is doing, is not the child Somerby would portray him as, and is a proxy for Russian interests as evidenced on multiple occasions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Yes, dear dembot. It's an international conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

      Delete
    2. Mao,
      Yes, and replace white voters with immigrants.
      LOL.

      Delete
  11. Everyone thinks the US blew up the pipeline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone in Russia thinks the US blew up the pipeline. FTFY

      Delete