OMG! Talk about something snowballing that’s totally out of context.
My First Point: Carlson is a journalist, and yes he should be able to tell his story.
My Second Point: In case you missed it, Carlson is a journalist, and yes he should be able to tell his story.
My Third Point: I never said he was not a journalist nor did I say he should not tell his story. Please, tell me where I said that?
YOU replied to my comment #27 where I said: “I don’t think so, LOL.”
That was in reply to your comment #24 where YOU said: “That is something YOU would do.”
Which was to my comment #2 where I said: “In the eyes of those favoring the US involvement in the Uke war, this interview probably means this guy is guilty of treason and should be placed in a dungeon along with the other insurrectionists.”
That remark was in sarcasm, where I mockingly made fun of those supporting the Uke war. Where those supporting the war will not like the idea of Carlson interviewing Putin. It was said in jest.
No where in there did I say Carlson was not a journalist nor did I say he could not do an interview or any of that.
Personally, I do not favor US involvement in the Uke war. It’s a European war. The Euro’s should be the ones funding, supplying and fighting the war. Not us. We have a southern border problem.
This is the second time you’ve picked at me over this. In case you missed it, Carlson is a journalist, I NEVER SAID HE WASN’T! Carlson should be able to tell whatever story he can get out or Russia, for most stories about Russia are blacked out by our own mainstream media. SO YES, CARLSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL HIS STORY, I NEVER SAID HE COULD NOT.
”My First Point: Carlson is a journalist, and yes he should be able to tell his story.”
And yet, you said, in post #2, “The eyes of those favoring the US involvement in the Uke war, this interview probably means this guy is guilty of treason and should be placed in a dungeon along with the other insurrectionists.”
You rushed to judgment and condemned “those favoring the US involvement in the Uke war” as probably accusing Carlson of treason, etc. THAT is why I said, in my post #24, that that was something YOU would do. You see, you had already condemned! Hence, you showed what YOU would do. I continued to say, in the same post, that Carlson was a journalist, doing what journalists do, and should be able to tell his story (free speech).
Now, you say, “That remark was in sarcasm, where I mockingly made fun of those supporting the Uke war.” In these threads, kid, that does not come off as sarcasm. If you meant it as sarcasm, you should have indicated it as such.
“My Second Point: In case you missed it, Carlson is a journalist, and yes he should be able to tell his story.”
I’m glad we agree on that.
“My Third Point: I never said he was not a journalist nor did I say he should not tell his story. Please, tell me where I said that?”
I never implied you DID!
“Personally, I do not favor US involvement in the Uke war.”
And that’s fine. Hell, I don’t favor DIRECT US involvement (i.e., US boots on the ground in Ukraine or US helmets in the air above Ukraine). But I recognize that providing arms and ordnance and supplies to Ukraine serves the interests of the US and its allies.
“It’s a European war. The Euro’s should be the ones funding, supplying and fighting the war. Not us.”
And, they are (except for the fighting; only the Ukrainians – and some mercs — are fighting).
“We have a southern border problem.”
Yes, we do. But that is a non-sequitur to the discussion at hand. It is a false dilemma fallacy.
“This is the second time you’ve picked at me over this.”
Don’t be so defensive: I’m not picking at you at all. I am pushing back at some of your comments. Geez; don’t take it so personal.