Tucker Carlson: The US is about to run out of diesel fuel

One of many consequences for having a "high character" dementia addled moron play president while under the control of petulant deviant children. If we do run out of diesel we will be supremely fucked.
 
Last edited:
Heating oil now $7.00 a gallon in the NE. Average tank size in 275 gallons and lasts less than two months. I don't want to hear one person that voted for the dementia patient say a damn word about it costing more than a thousand dollars more to fill their tank.
 
One of many consequences for having a "high character" dementia addled moron play president while under the control of petulant deviant children. If we do run out of diesel we will be supremely fucked.

EV's are the answer I've heard. "Do it, do it now."
 
Heating oil now $7.00 a gallon in the NE. Average tank size in 275 gallons and lasts less than two months. I don't want to hear one person that voted for the dementia patient say a damn word about it costing more than a thousand dollars more to fill their tank.

Solar panels are the answer I've heard. "Do it, do it now."
 
This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]
 
Heating oil now $7.00 a gallon in the NE. Average tank size in 275 gallons and lasts less than two months. I don't want to hear one person that voted for the dementia patient say a damn word about it costing more than a thousand dollars more to fill their tank.

Mostly peaceful freezing to death.
 
Yes rechargeable semi's can travel extremely long distances everyone knows this.
 
This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]


Fuck off
https://www.newsweek.com/us-only-has-just-days-diesel-left-before-supply-runs-out-1754851

Feel free to link where we aren't hack
 
This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]


Most of what Tucker does is facts supported by either clips or interviews. Tucker killed it on Hunter's laptop with Bobulinski on his show with actual emails from the laptop. It was your team that had a general tenor that it was Russian disinformation. It's a fact that US hospitals were performing sex change operations on minors. It was your team that had a general tenor that this wasn't happening, in spite of it being posted on hospital websites. It was Tucker that nailed the Russian collusion hoax. It was your team that swallowed the lies and had a general tenor that it Trump was a Russian asset. It was Tucker that has been pushing the impact of dem policies on inflation on food and energy. It was your team that had a general tenor that there was no inflation, that it was transitory, that we should just cut back and enjoy it.

So, your leftard Fox can't actually discuss topics on which Tucker has the facts wrong. Neither can you.
 
Imagine an alleged lawyer not understanding that lawyers fight to win their cases by presenting arguments that they themselves most likely do not believe. But a jury may.
 
This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]


Homerun.
 
This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]


Homerun.


Another diesel fuel shortage denier?

Sad

How do you explain all the other sources?

@Sources
 
25 days reserve is inadequate. But hey we don't need oil! Electric trucks are rolling as we speak.

To a stop.
 
This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]


Homerun.
Hi
This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]


This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]


Link, please . . .
 
This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]


Homerun.


iu

 
Cheap energy has been great for civilization. I for one want it to continue. I also don’t want 7 year old kids mining lithium.
 
Cheap energy has been great for civilization. I for one want it to continue. I also don’t want 7 year old kids mining lithium.

Hey, it's not your kids doing the mining, it's some colored kids in Africa so it's okay. Just as long as we don't have to see it, we are saving the world by unsafe and environmentally damaging mining in third world countries provided it is chicom state owned mining companies and not environmentally sensitive American mining companies we can all sleep soundly at night that our hands are clean.
 
This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]


Homerun.


View attachment 48979
 
This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." . . . Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.[/i]


Another classic dazzler take that aged well.
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussio...ly-being-allowed-a-half-tank-of-diesel#latest
 
Back
Top