Jump to content

Why Did Fake News Settle for $800 Million Payment, Then Fire Tucker Carlson?


DonTheCon2024

Recommended Posts

The red hatter experts told me Fox News would win the lawsuit easily as they had all the proof the election was stolen.. but then folded like a lawn chair in court and agreed to pay $800 million, andddd then canned their most watched entertainment show hosted by tucker carlson

 

whyd fake news Fox News do this? Did the liberals infiltrate the company? Will the red hatters ever get their head outta their?? 
 

How on earth do the red hatters keep falling for one scam after another?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DonTheCon2024 said:

The red hatter experts told me Fox News would win the lawsuit easily as they had all the proof the election was stolen.. but then folded like a lawn chair in court and agreed to pay $800 million, andddd then canned their most watched entertainment show hosted by tucker carlson

 

whyd fake news Fox News do this? Did the liberals infiltrate the company? Will the red hatters ever get their head outta their?? 
 

How on earth do the red hatters keep falling for one scam after another?!

I like folded like a cheap suit. Rupert obviously builds court settlements into cost-benefit analysis of how he presents news.  I really believe he canned him because of the disparaging emails about him, Lachlan, and other senior management. Pride overrode profit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DonTheCon2024 said:

The red hatter experts told me Fox News would win the lawsuit easily as they had all the proof the election was stolen.. but then folded like a lawn chair in court and agreed to pay $800 million, andddd then canned their most watched entertainment show hosted by tucker carlson

 

whyd fake news Fox News do this? Did the liberals infiltrate the company? Will the red hatters ever get their head outta their?? 
 

How on earth do the red hatters keep falling for one scam after another?!

Blackrock owns 59.M shares of Dominion.

Blackrock owns 45.7M shares of Fox.

Blackrock sued itself and fired

TuckerCarlson as part of that lawsuit.

FIGURED IT OUT YET?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Unwoke said:

Blackrock owns 59.M shares of Dominion.

Blackrock owns 45.7M shares of Fox.

Blackrock sued itself and fired

TuckerCarlson as part of that lawsuit.

FIGURED IT OUT YET?

What are you even talking about? BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager. An investment fund. That’s what they do. Buy and sell stocks and bonds. They don’t tell companies how to operate. They invest in them according to their anticipated performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UT alum said:

What are you even talking about? BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager. An investment fund. That’s what they do. Buy and sell stocks and bonds. They don’t tell companies how to operate. They invest in them according to their anticipated performance.

Do your homework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DonTheCon2024 said:

You got trump bucks, Biden bucks, and still in debt lmao

 

bless your heart twitter man 

Don’t really know what that’s suppose to mean but bless little heart and I hope you get to move out of mom and dad’s house one day. 😘

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tvc184 said:

FN didn’t want Carlson to take the stand.

To stop that from happening, they offered to settle for less that half of the suit was asking for. Part of the settlement was to get rid of Carlson. 

I wonder why they wouldn’t want Tucker to take the stand? We wouldn’t want to open up the book of Discovery. I mean Dominion is all on the up and up. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Separation Scientist said:

They can easily afforsd the SMALL part they will pay. Insurance will cover most of it, then the massive amount of advertizing revenue Fox gets will easily pay for the rest of it. I think Fox had higher ratings then all the commie / leftie news, COMBINED. 

Duh Fox News is the literal definition of main stream media. #1 channel.

Yet the redhatters jump through hoops trying to explain how the it isn’t main stream media.

If the scum bags are on record for lying to drive ratings, and you still watch/believe/support, then what does that make you? Well, it makes you the biggest SUCKERS on earth 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DonTheCon2024 said:

Duh Fox News is the literal definition of main stream media. #1 channel.

Yet the redhatters jump through hoops trying to explain how the it isn’t main stream media.

If the scum bags are on record for lying to drive ratings, and you still watch/believe/support, then what does that make you? Well, it makes you the biggest SUCKERS on earth 

I am not a "red hatter" at all. I have clearly said this before but you still don't get it. Trump DERANGEMENT syndrome will do that to you. Sorry but I will never vote for a Democrat party that thrives on perversion, immorality, and hate of America. 

Have a blessed day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Separation Scientist said:

I am not a "red hatter" at all. I have clearly said this before but you still don't get it. Trump DERANGEMENT syndrome will do that to you. Sorry but I will never vote for a Democrat party that thrives on perversion, immorality, and hate of America. 

Have a blessed day. 

You are delusional (and a sucker)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2023 at 10:31 AM, DonTheCon2024 said:

The red hatter experts told me Fox News would win the lawsuit easily as they had all the proof the election was stolen.. but then folded like a lawn chair in court and agreed to pay $800 million, andddd then canned their most watched entertainment show hosted by tucker carlson

 

whyd fake news Fox News do this? Did the liberals infiltrate the company? Will the red hatters ever get their head outta their?? 
 

How on earth do the red hatters keep falling for one scam after another?!

Ummmmm..... because he just cost them 800 million for spreading lies, and was a complete jerk to everyone in the building, apparently.  

Also the fact that, while his ratings were good, high-profile advertisers refused to have their ads ran during Tucker's program because they'd undoubtedly fact backlash every time he blasted on his dog whistle or just outright lied like he did regarding election fraud. His program didn't generate advertising revenue like a show with that type of ratings typically does.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,989
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    CougarCrazy124
    Newest Member
    CougarCrazy124
    Joined


  • Posts

    • The Supreme Court has never ruled to my knowledge that a child under 18 has all rights under the Constitution. A recent Fifth Circuit Court (our circuit in New Orleans) ruling said that an 18 year old is an adult and carries adult rights. That was in reference to the Texas law on issuing a license to carry a handgun in public for people 21 and older. So Texas has had to start issuing carry licenses to 18 year olds. Like other rulings that I’m aware of, those rights do not extend to a person who is not an adult under United States law, under 18. While some rights such as free-speech are protected for children, others are not. As another example of this is that the Fourteenth Amendment requires equal protection and due process.  A 14 year old can be denied the right to sign a contract however so he isn’t included in all “equal protection”. Therefore the issue of a 14 year old carrying a machine gun or any firearm is not a constitutional issue in my opinion. Even under federal law people often state that an 18-20 year old person cannot buy a handgun but that is incorrect. Under both state and federal law an 18-year-old can purchase a firearm in front of a police officer or ATF agent. The federal government, probably through the interstate commerce clause, doesn’t allow federal licensed gun dealers to sell a handgun to an 18 year old however such sales are not banned from a private person to person sale. So again an 18 year old is considered an adult and can purchase and possess handguns but a person under 18 is not included. The 18 year old adult simply can’t buy one from a federally licensed dealer. So there are some restrictions under both state and federal law for some firearms laws which are constitutional. As the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, McDonald and most recently (2022) in Bruen, the Second Amendment protects the right of adults to obtain (keep) and carry (bear) arms but did not extend that right to minors or children.  
    • There is nothing you can give a person with severe dementia that will make him coherent. It's a progressive disease. You can't reverse it,  which proves he does not have severe dementia 
    • Did you watch him at the State Of The Union?  My friend -- he was on something.  BTW, did you watch his taped response to Trump's debate challenge?  It was a 13 second video that they had to edit 5 times.  The man couldn't speak for 13 seconds without having to be edited.  So...
    • If he has severe dementia how can he remember what they told him?
    • What could they possibly give a  person who has "severe dementia" that would make him coherent for a debate?
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...