greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2023 at 7:27pm:


No!!!

Quote:


https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/apr/01/facts-behind-russian-right-wing-n...

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2023 at 7:27pm:


So you can't deal with what the New York Post reported so you try to turn the tables and claim I'm defending Putin.

But seeing as you brought it up:


John Pilger
@johnpilger

The Hypocrites on parade. Watch them on CNN, the BBC, read them wall-to-wall. Now imagine a strategic enclave of Britons, or French, or Germans, or Americans under violent siege - shelled and terrorised. Would this be tolerated by the rulers of the world?

John Pilger
@johnpilger

For Johnson and Biden to lecture us on the ethics of world affairs is absurd. Biden is currently stealing Afghanistan's cash reserves and condemning millions to starvation. The West could have brought peace to Ukraine, but chose not to.

And:



By Brian Cooney
Feb. 8, 2022

The list of governments overthrown by the U.S. is long and repetitive. For instance, the people of Chile had to "live under a government they did not choose," when the CIA enabled a military coup in 1973 that resulted in 17 years of forced disappearances, political imprisonment and torture.

The extent of the Obama administration's meddling in Ukraine's politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post-Yanukovych government.

In Crimea, where two-thirds of the population is ethnically Russian, the Crimean parliament reacted to the U.S.-sponsored coup by voting on March 6, 2014, to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. A referendum on March 16 returned a 97% vote in favor of joining Russia. This result was not accepted by Ukraine or most other nations. But Gallup and other polls record overwhelming approval of Russian annexation by Crimeans.

In May of 2014 pro-Russian separatists in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine declared the Independent People's Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk, which are not yet recognized by Russia or any other state. This region is the birthplace of former President Yanukovych, and is primarily Russophone with a large ethnic Russian minority. It continues to be a war zone between Ukrainian government troops and separatists supported by Russia. The death toll now stands at 14,000 in what has become a trench war along a 420-km-long front line cutting through densely populated areas.

To understand the current crisis over U.S. claims about the threat of Russian troops at the Ukrainian border, we have to keep in mind the ongoing violence and instability from the Ukrainian civil war in Donbas caused by the American-sponsored overthrow of Yanukovych. Since 2014 there have been intermittent efforts to implement the provisions of the Minsk Protocol negotiated by Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), aided by France and Germany. The protocol sought to establish a new political relationship between Kyiv and the Donbas region with greater autonomy for the Donbas. So far, the political will has not been strong enough to implement these necessary changes. From the Russian point of view, the instability is desirable because it blocks NATO from incorporating Ukraine and creating a military threat on Russia's border. This stalemate is complicated by unwillingness of the U.S. and EU to recognize that Russia's annexation of Crimea is a permanent fait accompli...

Putin's demands that NATO pledge not to admit Ukraine (and Georgia) and to limit the deployment of troops and weapons to NATO's eastern flank are reasonable. He is being much more accommodating than we would be if Russia or China were doing in the Western Hemisphere what the U.S. and its allies are doing in Europe.

Biden and his foreign-policy team seem determined to revive a cold-war bipolar divide between the West and the East, with the threat of a still-expanding nuclear arsenal constraining each side. This is a wasteful and reckless vision of Europe. It forces Russia and China to forge a defensive alliance against the West instead of developing their distinctive roles in a broader multipolar world. We need instead to go back to the vision proposed by Mikhail Gorbachev of a continental community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok in which nations can live harmoniously while adopting different sociopolitical systems.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2023 at 7:41pm:






by: Joe Schaeffer
Liberty Nation News, May 05, 2019

Poynter owns PolitiFact, a fact-checking site that has long been accused of regularly finding conservative politicians to be far more duplicitous than their Democrat counterparts. A look at Poynter’s major donors should explain its SPLC connections and left-leaning bias. Under the heading “Largest funders of Poynter” on the organization’s website, one finds the prolific Open Society Foundations, run by progressive billionaire George Soros. Another major donor is the Tides Foundation, which also happens to be “[one of] the largest contributors to” the notorious leftist agitating group Media Matters, activistfacts.com reports. Media Matters, founded by Clintonite David Brock, focuses most of its efforts on trying to shut down conservative media voices. Free-market libertarian billionaire Charles Koch’s charitable foundation is also a donor, which shows an interesting connection between global capitalism and radical progressives like Soros.

Establishment journalists anoint these watchdogs as authorities, and then the watchdogs declare that the establishment journalists are trusted news sources. It’s a hollow game, and the American people are not buying it. It is somewhat amazing and a touch delightful to see just how much the people playing this tired game truly can’t fathom why it doesn’t work anymore.





by Jeffrey Lord
News Busters, May 4th, 2019

Fox News headlined the story this way: “Poynter forced to scrap 'unreliable news' list targeting conservative outlets after outcry.”

Poynter compiled a blacklist - sorry, that would be “list” - of over 500 “unreliable” news sites that were “built from pre-existing databases compiled by journalists, fact-checkers and researchers around the country.” Mysteriously, Fox News reports this:

    “But a number of prominent conservative-leaning outlets were included in the “unreliable” category, including The Washington Examiner, Washington Free Beacon, Daily Caller and other publications that employ scores of journalists covering Congress, elections, the White House and more. The index was created with the help of an employee for the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Well what do you know. Amazing. A Left-wing “journalism” institute has someone who works for the far-left (and currently deep-in-scandal) Southern Poverty Law Center compile this list of “unreliable” news sites and lo and behold there are listed all those “prominent conservative-leaning outlets” somehow, someway, turning up on the blacklist….er…sorry….list. Oh yes, I noted Newsmax on there, and full disclosure, I occasionally Skype at Newsmax. As with the other sites named above, Newsmax is indeed a quite serious news outlet.

There is, in reality, nothing new here. The very reason for the existence of conservative media, from Fox to talk radio to sites like NewsBusters and those blacklisted…sorry…listed by Poynter is precisely the long ago realization that the mainstream media is in fact  the Leftist State Media. Dare we say, yes indeed, “unreliable.”

The only real news here is that the Poynter Institute suddenly had an urge to grab headlines by shooting itself in the foot. Calling attention to its left-leaning instincts by pretending to objectivity - an objectivity that quite obviously and unsurprisingly doesn’t exist.

50 ways for experts to lose their expertise

By Silvio Canto, Jr.

You may remember that Paul Simon sang "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover."  When will The New York Times write an editorial called "50 ways for experts to lose their expertise"?   

It turns out that everyone was lying, including those 50 experts who called the laptop Russian misinformation.  Can't wait to see one of the 50 explain it to Representative Jim Jordan now that Hunter Biden admitted the laptop is his. 

Wouldn't you love to see the Trump-Biden second debate now that we know that it was his laptop?  As you may remember, President Trump kept bringing up Hunter and Biden the experts.

In other words, the whole Russia-Trump story, from collusion to the laptop to Hamilton 68, was fake.  Roger Kimball gets it right:   

So here we are. The entire “Russia Collusion” hoax was dreamed up, paid for, and set into action by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It aimed at and succeeded in hobbling Trump’s first term, weighing it down with the $40 million fishing expedition conducted by senile former FBI chief Robert “What’s Fusion GPS?” Mueller.

And now we learn that all the ambient static about the Russkies are coming! the Russkies are coming! was similarly fabricated out of whole cloth. Here’s how it worked: Hamilton 68, a “research institute,” invents claims about Russian bots. Reporters then target public enemies like Devin Nunes, Mike Flynn, Tulsi Gabbard, or Donald Trump with the claims and, as Taibbi says, “headlines flow.”

The scam, he concludes, “needed just three elements: credentials of someone like ‘former FBI agent’ [Clint] Watts, the absence of any semblance of fact-checking, and the silence of companies like Twitter.”

And let me add a fourth element:  Too many media outlets invested in Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Let me repeat that this whole lie needed a megaphone and journalists looking for ratings were the perfect choice.

What happens now?  I don't know, but it would help if a few media sources would look at the camera and admit that they were wrong and too invested in the Biden candidacy. We can't redo that second debate but we could admit that U.S. voters were not told the truth. 

So how do the experts get their expertise back?  For starters, they should admit that they were political hacks, not experts.

Why would you want to see a presidential debate about a candidate's offspring's laptop, Mort?

Would anyone seriously want to hear your Dear Leader answering questions about Don Junior's laptop? How about the contents of Meghan McCain or Mitt Romney's daughter, Ronna McDaniel's laptop?

Would you seriously want to watch any presidential debate on that?

I'm curious. I'm keen to hear what you think. Here in Australia, politicians debate important political topics.

You?

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 7^th, 2023 at 9:52pm:


Looks like Mort doesn't want to answer you.

I wonder why   

wombatwoody wrote on May 20^th, 2023 at 2:19pm:


Lol   

White flag accepted, Karen.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 20^th, 2023 at 2:30pm:


You lazy wimp.