Congratulations! Your video, Re-contextualizing Tucker Carlson, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 24 Badge!

Your video, Re-contextualizing Tucker Carlson, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Tucker Carlson Cold Open - SNL, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 12 Badge!

Your video, Why White Supremacists Love Tucker Carlson, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 32 Badge!

Your link is to a virus hosting site. ABCnews.com.co is fake news, and a fake site.

Googled it, and found your others like it...all caught being FRAUDS. Damn you're unbelievably gullible and love to spread debunked lies by debunked liars. You got trolled by someone trying to show how gullible right wing people like you are with a ridiculous, insane, clearly false story that anyone with 1/10 of a brain saw right through.

These aren't virus sites, they're actual news organizations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/18/tucker-carlsons-surprising-much-needed-takedown-of-a-paid-protester-hoax/?utm_term=.1ce8e84e
2326

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01/18/how-a-hoax-website-about-paid-protesters-came-crumbling-down-live-on-tv/?utm_term=.f70
c71a514be

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/ads-two-dozen-cities-offer-protesters-2500-agitate/

@newtboy
i agree in theory,but disagree in practice.
as i stated in my comment:discernment.

it appears we approach news and journalism differently.

i do not consume the institution,but rather the individual reporter.which is why i will watch a report by shepard smith from FOX,but ignore anything by tucker carlson or bill o'reilly.

the HUGE mistake you make about hedges,is just that,an assumption.

chris hedges mistake.
is the same mistake that other media personalities have made,such as cenk uynger when he was on MSNBC.

hedges criticized power.
in fact,in the run up to the iraq war hedges was pushing out story after story that was highly critical of the bush administration,and..ironically..was using the very intelligence reports that you mentioned.he was challenged by the new york times editorial board to either cease and desist,or face disciplinary action.

he chose to retain his integrity,and honor his father (great story right there,he always chokes up when telling it) and walked away from a successful career,full of adulation and respect,rather than bow at the foot of the kings throne and kiss the feet of the powerful.

the man has guts,in spades,and i admire him very much.

but if you think my opnion is biased,then let us take phil donahue who was hosting the most popular show on the newly founded MSNBC.

he too,was critical of the bush administration and had guests on that were countering the avalanche of white house narratives flooding the cable news networks.

he was fired,while simultaneously hosting the most popular and highest rated shows on MSNBC.

what i am saying,is exactly what hedges is saying:
criticize power and you will be branded,blacklisted and shunned from the "mainstream media".you will be relegated to the fringe for your defiance to power.

/chuckles..i find it interesting that pretty much everybody uses the term "mainstream media" to epitomize:lazy journalism,propaganda,fake news and yet the media THEY choose to consume..well...thats not mainstream at all.the media THEY choose to consume is top notch journalism.

i am not saying my choices are right,but i do choose them carefully.i do not subscribe to institutions but rather individuals who have proven the test of proper journalistic integrity:chris hedges,matt taibbi,bill moyers,henry giroux,laura poitrus,jeremy scahill,amy goodman,paul jay

you may notice that every one of these people are critical of power,and that..my friend..is the basic premise of the fourth estate.

the washington post,along with the new york times and wall street journal have become rags.just my opinion,feel free to disagree.

i'm going to trust the >95% of the relevant scientific community over a self justifying video clip with no sources from a group backed by categorically vapid psychopaths tucker carlson and dick cheney.

You should tell NASA about this, they and nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations will be flabbergasted they got it so wrong. Good thing we have a conservative news and opinion site set up by Tucker Carlson to set them straight.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Well, Gingrich is in the mix for sure, but honestly I think Mittens is the most palatable combination of qualified and electable. I mean, the guy actually has executive experience, as well as business sense. Gingrich comes with so much baggage, and sounds like such a dick all the time.

>> ^heropsycho:

I disagree. If you're gonna put resumes of the candidates together, Newt Gingrich would be the most qualified. Sure, Ron Paul has been in Congress longer, but Gingrich had a major leadership position as Speaker of the House. Going along with that, he negotiated numerous deals with the President, including gov't budgets, talks about foreign policy initiatives, etc.
I don't mean to suggest I think he's the best candidate because I don't think he is, but most qualified? No contest.
I don't vote necessarily for the most qualified, but I will NOT vote for anyone who isn't qualified. Ron Paul is qualified to be President, although I don't think I could ever vote for him because of his ideological rigidity. Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain are all unqualified.
>> ^notarobot:
"There's got to be someone who understands the issues better than Herman Cain?"
Um... Ron Paul is the most qualified and experienced candidate on the republican stage, period. Now if only he could figure out how to connect with "normal" people, and have some billionaire back him to buy MSM air time.

Dude, Obama graduated from Harvard Law, and was a Senator before he ever became president.

Jugears was a Senator who voted "Present" when he voted at all, and his grades are all hidden away. BTW he's a Constitutional law expert? I'd trust a Klan leader more to lead a Seder.

In comparison, Herman Cain murdered John Lennon's "Imagine" by turning it into a song about pizza.

"Successful CEO" is easier to type. Jugears has never met a payroll. Any assistant manager at Burger King has more business saavy.

Cut the crap. Obama is more than qualified to be president, even if you disagree with him vehemently.

I'd like to agree with you, except for a little something called THE LAST THREE YEARS. Consider the crap CUT.





>> ^heropsycho:

Dude, Obama graduated from Harvard Law, and was a Senator before he ever became president. In comparison, Herman Cain murdered John Lennon's "Imagine" by turning it into a song about pizza. Cut the crap. Obama is more than qualified to be president, even if you disagree with him vehemently.
>> ^quantumushroom:
After obamarx, are there any qualifications at all? The libmedia doesn't have the same faith that Schmucker does that Cain's ideas are unworkable, so they're going after him with this other crap which hasn't discouraged a single Cain supporter.

I disagree. If you're gonna put resumes of the candidates together, Newt Gingrich would be the most qualified. Sure, Ron Paul has been in Congress longer, but Gingrich had a major leadership position as Speaker of the House. Going along with that, he negotiated numerous deals with the President, including gov't budgets, talks about foreign policy initiatives, etc.

I don't mean to suggest I think he's the best candidate because I don't think he is, but most qualified? No contest.

I don't vote necessarily for the most qualified, but I will NOT vote for anyone who isn't qualified. Ron Paul is qualified to be President, although I don't think I could ever vote for him because of his ideological rigidity. Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain are all unqualified.

>> ^notarobot:

"There's got to be someone who understands the issues better than Herman Cain?"
Um... Ron Paul is the most qualified and experienced candidate on the republican stage, period. Now if only he could figure out how to connect with "normal" people, and have some billionaire back him to buy MSM air time.

Dude, Obama graduated from Harvard Law, and was a Senator before he ever became president. In comparison, Herman Cain murdered John Lennon's "Imagine" by turning it into a song about pizza. Cut the crap. Obama is more than qualified to be president, even if you disagree with him vehemently.

>> ^quantumushroom:

After obamarx, are there any qualifications at all? The libmedia doesn't have the same faith that Schmucker does that Cain's ideas are unworkable, so they're going after him with this other crap which hasn't discouraged a single Cain supporter.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 2 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Top 10 reasons for not believing in climate science consensus

1. Not being a climate scientist
2. Susceptibility to corporate programing
3. Subservience to media
4. Subservience to politicians
5. Ownership of a business that generates massive amounts of pollution
6. Paid to not believe publicly
7. Poor critical thinking skills
8. General gullibility
9. General ignorance
10. Wearing a bow tie so tightly that it cuts off circulation to the brain

>> ^lantern53:

Especially since there are a thousand other reasons to not believe in global warming.