Jump to content

Recommended Posts

are Japanese Sunni muselmen properly referred to as Wasabi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^をロロ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kinda expected more trolling by bernie supporters, but it looks like it went relatively smooth in that regard, the trump scare is real i guess.

 

 

The crowd erupted in cheers when South Dakota’s delegates cast their votes, putting Mrs. Clinton over the threshold for the nomination.

that's something i really don't get. getting climpton into the presidency is as exciting as installing a new graphics card driver or something, she barely even passes for human.

Edited by eugene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limpy, try reading the article without your pre-conceived bias.

 

To paraphrase: Governments do this, and yes that includes the American government. Here is some evidence that the US government does this, and based on this evidence, it is safe to assume that other governments do this. Also, it's not a hedge, it's a statement of fact.

 

Now, you could argue the fact that this (influencing other states) has been a matter of statecraft since before the idea of nation states is beyond question, so I'm not sure why this is supposed to be a big revelation. However given what we know about the lead-up to the Iraq war and the "evidence" presented in support of that minor debacle (please read the words "minor debacle" with dripping sarcasm), suspicion is not unwarranted. The author does a good job of laying out what we know so far, and even indicates that all things point to Russian involvement.

 

There's no pro-putin bias in the article at all. There is some pro-Sanders/anti-Clinton stuff toward the end though.

We're not talking about the author of that article, we're talking about "Greenwald et all".

 

If someone were to say to me (e.g.) "Hillary is a crook"

And I replied "yeah but so is Trump"

That would be me trying to minimize Hillary's crookedness by contrast/comparison...

 

If every time someone criticized Hillary

I replied with "yeah but Trump..."

What are the possible motivations behind that tendency? I think a reasonable person would eventually start to think "this person doesn't want Hillary's standing to fall, relative to Trump", no?

 

(I would call that bias, and I think most people would. And it doesn't even matter if the "yeah but" statement is factually correct: the fact that I brought it up out of nowhere every single time is the telling bit.)

 

Your explanation about this time doesn't account for all the other myriad times he's exhibited this "yeah but" linguistic tic (I will post other examples below if need-be)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When criticized for his coziness with Putin-backed RT, Greewald said:

 

"There is apparently a rule that says it’s perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government (Kaplan/The Washington Post), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it’s an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government."

 

 

In other words: "yeah but America..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't, we've gone over this all before, and no-one else here wants to see it again.

 

RE: that article you posted

He's condemning the US for bombing a hospital, after they criticize Russia for doing exactly that same thing. Hardly a rant.

 

Look here's why he does what he does

 

 

 

Fixating on the rights abuses of distant governments while largely ignoring those committed by one's own does not only demonstrate the glaring insincerity of the purported beliefs. Far worse, it is an abdication of one's primary duty as a journalist and as a citizen: to oppose, first and foremost, the bad acts of one's own government.

 

To criticize the US is not the same thing as supporting Russia. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one time Greenwald mentioned Russia's anti-gay laws?

 

"Russia has awful anti-gay laws; therefore, Snowden should return to US, which imprisons whistleblowers for decades" - drooling jingosists

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 1, 2013

Chen, you tell me I have a bias, and so here I am defending my case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly have an anti-Greenwald bias.

 

At the same time, Greenwald, who is very critical of American foreign policy, does not have a pro-Russia bias.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you clearly have a pro-Greenwald bias

Greenwald goes out of his way to defend Russia from criticism

or when that's impossible he will downplay such criticism by contrasting it with America's problems

The fact that you don't see that--or won't even entertain the idea--is evidence of your bias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is not defending Russia from criticism. He is pointing out the hypocrisy in criticizing Russia/Ecuador/etc. etc. but staying silent on the American government doing very similar things. And he's right in that journalists would have a much greater chance of affecting change in America than in any of those other places, because America is actually a country where change can happen from citizens' pressure. And to do so is not to support Putin or Russia.

 

If I say "Crack is bad, but so is meth", I'm not suggesting you rush out and start smoking rock. Likewise "Russia's government does bad things, but so does America's" does not suggest that Russia is a wonderful place full of pixie dust and rainbows, and that Putin gives the best blowjobs in the world.

 

Let's talk about something related to both your dislike of Greenwald and the US presidential election.

How do you feel about Greenwald's support of Sanders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is not defending Russia from criticism. He is pointing out the hypocrisy in criticizing Russia/Ecuador/etc. etc. but staying silent on the American government doing very similar things. And he's right in that journalists would have a much greater chance of affecting change in America than in any of those other places, because America is actually a country where change can happen from citizens' pressure. And to do so is not to support Putin or Russia.

 

If I say "Crack is bad, but so is meth", I'm not suggesting you rush out and start smoking rock. Likewise "Russia's government does bad things, but so does America's" does not suggest that Russia is a wonderful place full of pixie dust and rainbows, and that Putin gives the best blowjobs in the world.

 

Let's talk about something related to both your dislike of Greenwald and the US presidential election.

How do you feel about Greenwald's support of Sanders?

I think me and GG are on the same page about Sanders and Clinton

I would love to see Clinton thrown in prison and Sanders in the White House...But actually I am rather optimistic about the future of American politics in light of the last month...Bernie has roused lefties the way Occupy did...and while in some ways we Americans have a short collective memory politically, I actually think these corruption revelations will hang around the way Watergate and Monica Lewinsky did, and as a result our collective tolerance for bullshit will take a steep dip (for a few years, at least)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, under president Trump, the people of America will not tolerate bullshit. He will win the election, but immediately be kicked out of office again. Would that make Mike Pence the next president?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there will be a snowball effect over the next few years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it weird when Bill Clinton started chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!" during his speech last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, was it the Russians or was it not?

 

Finally, they asked Julian Assange about this. Julian Assange who, after all, is the guy who published the leaks.

 

See his answer: https://youtu.be/ON4t85oX99E?t=647 (at 10min46sec)

 

About the so-called "experts" who say the hack was made by Russia:

"Clinton's campaign manager was asked by Jake Tapper who are these experts, can you name them? The answer was no, a refusal to name the experts."

 

About sourcing:

"We never reveal our sources, obviously."

"No one knows who our sources are. It's stricly speculation."

 

Who else, then, could have hacked the DNC?

"The DNC has been hacked dozens and dozens of times (extensively) over the last few years."

 

***

 

So, is this simply another smoke screen, another example of diversion tactics in modern politics? According to Julian Assange, of course it is! I wonder who I should be believing here... Hillary Clinton and the DNC, James Comey and the FBI, Loretta Lynch and the DOJ or Julian Assange and Wikileaks? :emb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Trump has thrown some love Putin's way. It wouldn't surprise me if Vlad tried to poison the waters for Hilary to find a better dancing partner in Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the article at the intercept that was posted earlier? Amongst other things, it links to this: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

 

So, lets say some people hacked the DNC servers. And some of those people operated from Russia, or had Russian nationality. Would that entail the Russian government was behind it? Not necessarily, of course.

 

The problem is not finding out who the hacker was, or were. The problem is whether or not Russian officials were aware of what was going on. And what their involvement was.

 

At this point, we simply don't know. And the fact that Assange calls this a smoke screen discredits his opinion, imo. Simply because he doesn't know all the facts. Even if he knows who gave the data to wikileaks. So Assanges opinion is irrelevant at this point, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...