More Propaganda from the NY Times.

[boneyard bill]

The problem with our pro-western propaganda is there are simultaneously trying to sell us two contradictory things.

The problem with the pro-Russians here is that they apparently think there's not a whit of propaganda coming from the Kremlin. That Putin (whatever those bad western journalists say about him) is just an honest leader trying to do what's right for his people and is in no way attempting to manipulate opinion (or votes) in his favor.

It isn't like he's trying to be some sort of "president for life" or something. No, he's just this guy, and he just loves his country. So much so that you can't really blame him for trying to make it a bit bigger, eh?

If there is any Russian propaganda, we're not getting here.

No, you're pretty much 100 percent Kremlin propaganda.

Not a very well-substantiated response, I must say. We're just supposed to take your word for it? Where have you even heard the Russian propaganda to know that that is what I am spewing? How do you differentiate truth from propaganda? Has the msm produced ANYTHING on this subject that didn't come from the State Department or the White House? You haven't even said how you propose to determine truth from falsehood much less how you have actually done it.

 

[boneyard bill]

If there is any Russian propaganda, we're not getting here. There isn't any msm coverage of the Russian position or of just about anything that Putin has said. If you want the Russian position you have to go to RT which is only on the internet. Even there, however, most of the commentators are Western journalists.

Well, few weeks ago there was CNN coverage of Putin talking at some meetings or something. Funny thing is, they cut it short exactly when he started his best points. Russian press made a big fuss about it, so much for a freedom of press in the West. But of course you don't know about that because US media choose not to talk about it.
Another thing I always notice in US is the fact that people are split about internal politics and generally don't trust government and senate considering them corrupt and incompetent. Yet when it comes to international politics they all trust them unconditionally. Somehow all these idiots become geniuses and moral leaders. And this is all after Iraq, Syria, NSA spying,....

To some extent this is true, especially with respect to domestic politics. And yes, on foreign policy the msm just pretty much parrots the White House and the State Department. But the public doesn't always buy it as we saw with Obama's Syrian debacle.

- - - Updated - - -

And you know that how?

I know that from seeing how in all of these threads, it's always the exact same 3-4 people taking the pro-russian side; while nobody else does. The pattern couldn't be more clear.

That may be true, but it's utterly irrelevant. Truth is not a matter of majority vote.

 

[boneyard bill]

And you know that how?

I know that from seeing how in all of these threads, it's always the exact same 3-4 people taking the pro-russian side; while nobody else does. The pattern couldn't be more clear.

And the same russia-haters like you, your point?
And even then you are minority here.

Come on. This is ridiculous. You dont have to be russia-hater to see Russia, and Putins, role in this.

Russia has taken Crimea from Ukraina. There is no doubt.

What do you mean by taken? The parliament and the public in Crimea both voted for it. Was it a "fair" election? Who knows. But the outcome isn't what want wouldn't have expected under the circumstances. But at least in Crimea the full parliament voted whereas in Kiev only a rump parliament voted to oust Yanukovich as his allies had fled for their lives just as he did. The new "government" was just a bunch of politicians who came to power due to the strength of a bunch of street thugs and a paralyzed police department.

The crucial point is that this whole thing began with the coup d'état in Kiev. The msm never calls it that, but that is what it was. The msm doesn't say that the Yanukovich government was democratically elected. In fact, it appears that when the term "democracy" is ever used by the msm, it is in reference to the street thugs who promulgated the coup.

But the facts of the situation do not support this rhetoric. Was the US behind this coup? Almost certainly but, of course, it's difficult to prove a "covert" operation simply because it is covert. We know that Victoria Nuland knew the name of the new premier a month before the coup. We know that she also said that the US had spent $5 billion on the democracy movement in Ukraine, and we know that she defines the democracy movement as the same street thugs who instigated the coup.

All of this is available on the internet, but I doubt that much of it is reported by the msm, and where it is it is spun into something very different.

One thing is undeniable. The US is not on the side of democracy in Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

And you know that how?

I know that from seeing how in all of these threads, it's always the exact same 3-4 people taking the pro-russian side; while nobody else does. The pattern couldn't be more clear.

And the same russia-haters like you, your point?
And even then you are minority here.

Come on. This is ridiculous. You dont have to be russia-hater to see Russia, and Putins, role in this.

Russia has taken Crimea from Ukraina. There is no doubt.

Crimea left Ukraine and reunited with Russia.

 

[dystopian]

That may be true, but it's utterly irrelevant. Truth is not a matter of majority vote.

It sure as fuck isn't a matter of minority stubborness either. And the consensus position is generally much more likely to be accurate than that of the minority; especially when that minority has routinely ignored the facts (ie; the truth) when they didn't coincide with their own biased narrative and isn't any more knowledgeable on the subject than the next random guy.

More than that, the fact that it's always the same three guys saying the same shit over and over again is most certainly relevant. If for example every time there's a thread on race, and every time it's the exact same guy who started it, talking shit about black people, the takeaway that anyone's going to have is that the guy is a fucking racist scumbag. Similarly, when every time there's a new thread related to Russia/Ukraine being started by one of the same three guys who proceed to do nothing but pretend like Putin/Russia is a victim with the west bullying them, the takeaway that the vast majority of people are going to have is that you guys either A) are a bunch of Putin fanboys who don't have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or B) are a bunch of *paid* Putin fanboys who don't have anything of substance to add to the discussion.

I'm going to guess that Putin can't afford to pay random dudes on the internet to provide him with some propaganda anymore, so I'm guessing it's A.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there is any Russian propaganda, we're not getting here. There isn't any msm coverage of the Russian position or of just about anything that Putin has said. If you want the Russian position you have to go to RT which is only on the internet. Even there, however, most of the commentators are Western journalists.

We are getting it from you. You're taking the Russian position as automatically true.

 

[arkirk]

Ukraine is not a country, but a disparate collection of factions, surrounded by a border that came from a gentleman's agreement between long gone leaders from the east and west. Polluted, indebted, shattered with political and social differences that are too great to unify under anything like a legitimate government, it is falling apart regardless of what either Putin or the European Union wants. I can only wonder what Solomon would do with this baby.

 

[boneyard bill]

That may be true, but it's utterly irrelevant. Truth is not a matter of majority vote.

It sure as fuck isn't a matter of minority stubborness either. And the consensus position is generally much more likely to be accurate than that of the minority; especially when that minority has routinely ignored the facts (ie; the truth) when they didn't coincide with their own biased narrative and isn't any more knowledgeable on the subject than the next random guy.

More than that, the fact that it's always the same three guys saying the same shit over and over again is most certainly relevant. If for example every time there's a thread on race, and every time it's the exact same guy who started it, talking shit about black people, the takeaway that anyone's going to have is that the guy is a fucking racist scumbag. Similarly, when every time there's a new thread related to Russia/Ukraine being started by one of the same three guys who proceed to do nothing but pretend like Putin/Russia is a victim with the west bullying them, the takeaway that the vast majority of people are going to have is that you guys either A) are a bunch of Putin fanboys who don't have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or B) are a bunch of *paid* Putin fanboys who don't have anything of substance to add to the discussion.

I'm going to guess that Putin can't afford to pay random dudes on the internet to provide him with some propaganda anymore, so I'm guessing it's A.

This is just as irrelevant as your last post. The truth is determined through evidence, not rhetoric.

 

[dystopian]

This is just as irrelevant as your last post. The truth is determined through evidence, not rhetoric.

Rhetoric is all you have.

 

[boneyard bill]

If there is any Russian propaganda, we're not getting here. There isn't any msm coverage of the Russian position or of just about anything that Putin has said. If you want the Russian position you have to go to RT which is only on the internet. Even there, however, most of the commentators are Western journalists.

We are getting it from you. You're taking the Russian position as automatically true.

Where in the mainstream media coverage did you learn that Yanukovych was democratically elected? Where in the msm or any official US government source did you learn that Yanukovych's party constituted the majority in the Ukrainian parliament? Where in the msm did you learn that the elections which Yanukovych won were supervised and monitored by international figures so that any charges of corruption were baseless? Where in the msm did you learn that most of those parliamentary members fled for the lives the same a Yanukovych did? Where in the msm did you learn that vote by parliament to oust Yanukovych was actually taken by a rump parliament that lacked a quorum because so many of its members fled? Where in the msm media did you learn the many of the protestors on the Maidan were armed? Where is the msm did you learn that many of the protestors came from the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party or the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist Right Sector? Where in the msm did you learn that Russia already had 25,000 troops in Crimea under treaty with Ukraine?

What you likely did hear from the msm was that protestors were somehow a "democracy movement" with no explanation for why a democracy movement would be needed in a country that was already Democratic and where elections were due in another year in any case. What you did hear from John Kerry was the Crimea was "invaded" even though this was simply not true.

Now all of the things that you didn't hear in the msm are true, and when you know them, then you have to know that coverage of events there was extremely biased here in the US. The spin that the media has put on events there are simply not justified when you know these additional facts.

If you had been paying the slightest attention to the ongoing events in Ukraine prior to the coup, you would have known form the very beginning that US media coverage didn't make any sense. As it so happens, I was paying the slightest attention and not a whole lot more, but because I was aware of a little bit about the Ukrainian situation I could recognize the spin and so I looked into matters a little more and uncovered a whole lot more omissions in US media coverage and also uncovered some false reporting.

You don't need to embrace propaganda from either side to figure out what is truth and what are lies and distortions. All you have to do is look up the facts.

 

[boneyard bill]

Ukraine is not a country, but a disparate collection of factions, surrounded by a border that came from a gentleman's agreement between long gone leaders from the east and west. Polluted, indebted, shattered with political and social differences that are too great to unify under anything like a legitimate government, it is falling apart regardless of what either Putin or the European Union wants. I can only wonder what Solomon would do with this baby.

Ukraine was a functioning and peaceful democracy until the coup d'état in the Maidan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there is any Russian propaganda, we're not getting here. There isn't any msm coverage of the Russian position or of just about anything that Putin has said. If you want the Russian position you have to go to RT which is only on the internet. Even there, however, most of the commentators are Western journalists.

We are getting it from you. You're taking the Russian position as automatically true.

Where in the mainstream media coverage did you learn that Yanukovych was democratically elected? Where in the msm or any official US government source did you learn that Yanukovych's party constituted the majority in the Ukrainian parliament? Where in the msm did you learn that the elections which Yanukovych won were supervised and monitored by international figures so that any charges of corruption were baseless?

International supervision helps, it doesn't ensure an election is fair. Besides, it doesn't do anything to present false flag candidates. (Think of Morsi--ran as a moderate, showed himself to be an Islamist.)

Where in the msm did you learn that most of those parliamentary members fled for the lives the same a Yanukovych did? Where in the msm did you learn that vote by parliament to oust Yanukovych was actually taken by a rump parliament that lacked a quorum because so many of its members fled? Where in the msm media did you learn the many of the protestors on the Maidan were armed? Where is the msm did you learn that many of the protestors came from the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party or the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist Right Sector? Where in the msm did you learn that Russia already had 25,000 troops in Crimea under treaty with Ukraine?

Ever notice that one of Moscow's standard tactics is to get a puppet government in power and then use that puppet government to invite the bear in?

And I don't even see the relevance of the troops in the Crimea. This wasn't a conventional invasion.

What you likely did hear from the msm was that protestors were somehow a "democracy movement" with no explanation for why a democracy movement would be needed in a country that was already Democratic and where elections were due in another year in any case. What you did hear from John Kerry was the Crimea was "invaded" even though this was simply not true.

You can have a democracy movement when the "democratic" system is corrupt.

Now all of the things that you didn't hear in the msm are true, and when you know them, then you have to know that coverage of events there was extremely biased here in the US. The spin that the media has put on events there are simply not justified when you know these additional facts.

The problem is your "facts" are more a matter of spin.

If you had been paying the slightest attention to the ongoing events in Ukraine prior to the coup, you would have known form the very beginning that US media coverage didn't make any sense. As it so happens, I was paying the slightest attention and not a whole lot more, but because I was aware of a little bit about the Ukrainian situation I could recognize the spin and so I looked into matters a little more and uncovered a whole lot more omissions in US media coverage and also uncovered some false reporting.

You don't need to embrace propaganda from either side to figure out what is truth and what are lies and distortions. All you have to do is look up the facts.

1) Facts can be cherry-picked to get a very different conclusion.

2) You're taking as binary things that aren't.

- - - Updated - - -

Ukraine is not a country, but a disparate collection of factions, surrounded by a border that came from a gentleman's agreement between long gone leaders from the east and west. Polluted, indebted, shattered with political and social differences that are too great to unify under anything like a legitimate government, it is falling apart regardless of what either Putin or the European Union wants. I can only wonder what Solomon would do with this baby.

Ukraine was a functioning and peaceful democracy until the coup d'état in the Maidan.

Ukraine can hardly be described as functioning.

It was peaceful so long as it did Moscow's bidding. When they threw out the Russian puppets things turned violent.

 

[barbos]

Ukraine is not a country, but a disparate collection of factions, surrounded by a border that came from a gentleman's agreement between long gone leaders from the east and west. Polluted, indebted, shattered with political and social differences that are too great to unify under anything like a legitimate government, it is falling apart regardless of what either Putin or the European Union wants. I can only wonder what Solomon would do with this baby.

Ukraine was a functioning and peaceful democracy until the coup d'état in the Maidan.

Yes, they had more democracy than Russia. Maybe too much democracy for their own good because they have anarchy now.

- - - Updated - - -

Ever notice that one of Moscow's standard tactics is to get a puppet government in power and then use that puppet government to invite the bear in?

My irony meter is melting. And I can't really comment on the rest of the garbage you post here.

 

[Ford]

Yes, they had more democracy than Russia. Maybe too much democracy for their own good because they have anarchy now.

Oh, that pesky democracy. They would so much better served by the strong hand of a nation which has little or no history of this absurd notion of "voting" for one's leadership.

Better to fold Ukraine back into the Russian Federation than let these rubes determine their own destiny, eh?

 

[barbos]

Yes, they had more democracy than Russia. Maybe too much democracy for their own good because they have anarchy now.

Oh, that pesky democracy. They would so much better served by the strong hand of a nation which has little or no history of this absurd notion of "voting" for one's leadership.

Better to fold Ukraine back into the Russian Federation than let these rubes determine their own destiny, eh?

Just stating the fact. Before latest Maidan Ukraine had had a lot of what you call "democracy" with regular fist fights in the parlament
And then Maidan with Molotov Cocktails. You don't have it in Merica by the way.

 

[Ford]

Just stating the fact.

The fact that Ukraine doesn't really exist at all, and is actually part of Greater Russia?

 

[barbos]

Just stating the fact.

The fact that Ukraine doesn't really exist at all, and is actually part of Greater Russia?

No, right now it's part of Greater Merica.

 

[ksen]

Does anyone else find it weird that some people seem to really admire Putin as a strong leader but then turn right around and criticize Obama for behaving like an imperial President?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does anyone else find it weird that some people seem to really admire Putin as a strong leader but then turn right around and criticize Obama for behaving like an imperial President?

It seems odd. Obama says a couple Russian billionaires can't visit the US and Obama is laughed at. Putin puts Russian billionaires in jail for publicly speaking out against his policies and the mum is on.

 

[ksen]

tbh I'd be pretty happy if Obama would tell some American billionaires they can't visit the US.