Are you kidding? They try to find out stuff that is "forbidden"/out-of-bounds/hidden and do their damndest to report on it, because being the only outlet reporting on something drives up ratings. Politicians know this and use this to their benefit. Trump in particular does this very well.
Do you trust the mainstream media?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
What the hell does someone's email server have to do with the job of president?
What the hell does someone's husband have to do with the job of president?
What the hell does someone's pneumonia have to do with the job of president?
What the hell does someone's charities have to do with the job of being president?
You know it's kind of funny that all of Assange's buddies are right wing authoritarians. That very blatant hypocrisy should cause Assange's supporters some concern. But it doesn't. Why do you think that is? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-fernando-villavicencio-amazon-a7010986.html
What would lead a reasoned person to conclude Obama is an authoritarian? And please be specific. I see no evidence to support your inference that he is. So enlighten me.
Rubbish, and the usual cop out.
Again, Do you have any reputable evidence supporting your nonsensical claim?
I thought not.
That's what you would like people to believe..again, Do you have any reputable evidence supporting your nonsensical claim? Or are you saying there is/was a conspiracy?
Oh I certainly read non mainstream accounts on many things, but unlike you, I am able to sort the wheat from the chaff in most cases, and am certainly not burdened by my "badge of honour"alternative thinking, as you are, and that I must uphold at all costs.
So again, Do you have any reputable evidence supporting your nonsensical claim re 9/11? Or are you saying there is/was a conspiracy?
You misunderstand: Your "apparent" middle ground strategy is just that, a fabricated strategy.
Something you need to have others accept, so as to blinker them to your closer opinion that is far more extreme, if not fanatical.
Again, Do you have any evidence supporting your claim re 9/11 being a conspiracy by the mainstream media?
So you would have us all believe: In actual fact though, its the way you apply it to others while leaving yourself exempt and then fabricating some nonsensical fabricated reasoning why you are exempt. As others have at times noted, you have your definition of adhoms that apply to others: And you have another, that applies to yourself.Certainly evidence for string and its derivitives is lacking, and yes certainly I accept that as I always have. As you say, your free to accept or otherwise, as am I.
Difference being, I have no ether theory to uphold and try and ressurrect, that you are doing at every opportunity.
The rest of your rant is laughable at best.
Apologies if in your opinion, that is an adhom.
tic mode on
Last edited:
He's an authoritarian, and a libertarian, and a capitalist, and a socialist (like everyone else in the US.) He's less authoritarian than GWB or Trump, more authoritarian than Friedman or Reagan.
Well, the Charities bit could be quite a bit - if someone has setup a "charity" that they regularly donate to (to gather tax write-offs and thus lower taxes paid), but then they use that "charity" to pay themselves via their businesses... such as has been alleged that Trump did with one of his foundations... that is illegal, and honestly, a pretty decent indication of how the person aligns themselves morally.
Put such a person in a position where they can have a hand in shaping the rules for after they leave office... and you can bet they'd bend em to their favor a little.
Sorry, that was meant sarcastically. Most of those things (like charities and sexual assault) have a bearing on their performance as president.
Well here is the thing comrade, if you knew anything about the Western media you would know it isn't the homogeneous machine to which you are accustomed. A number of various opinions are expressed in the Western media, and a number of differing views. Some Western news sources like Fox News present scripted news and are virtually entirely propaganda. Some are wacko. They report some very blatantly false material. But there are many other sources which are very good at reporting the news. They have earned trust over the course of years. Unlike your Mother Russia Western media is constantly fact checked by other members of the Western press. Unlike your beloved Mother Russia, there is no single power which controls the Western press. The Western press competes against each other to report the news first, fast, and accurately. That doesn't happen in your beloved state owned and controlled Russian press.
The truth matters outside your beloved Mother Russia comrade.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
To repeat myself: Given your choice of "reputable sources", this is impossible. As hopeless as to find reputable evidence for modern physics to a fundamentalist who accepts only the Bible (or the Quran) as a "reputable source".Again, Do you have any reputable evidence supporting your nonsensical claim?
I thought not.
LOL. Anybody out there who claims there was no conspiracy? Ok, a lone guy can have, at least in principle, shot Kennedy dead, and a lone guy is not a conspiracy. But I have to inform you that even the official version contains a lot of conspiracy, organized by some Osama bin Laden.
And, to repeat: I actually favor no particular choice among the many conspiracy theories - nor the official one, nor one of the many others. If you really know a 9/11 theory without any conspiracy, this would be interesting news. May be aliens? If aliens act, they also act together, but this would be hardly a conspiracy, because they have no reason to hide this from other aliens, and no necessity to hide something from stupid animals like us. Another possibility without conspiracy?
Again nonsense, because I have never claimed that I never use ad homs. They are very weak arguments, but, given that they are cheap, one can use them sometimes. For example, a reasonable application is to use them to justify own ignorance. In particular, for ignoring attacks by joepistole, an ad hom is sufficient.
If you claim I have two different definitions, please quote them. Or at least provide them out of memory, so that I can clarify such a misunderstanding.
And, again, ad homs are simply weak arguments, there would be not much reason for apologies. Given that you have, essentially, only ad homs as arguments, you would have to apologize for posting.
In this case, there was not even an argument. Nor an ad hom argument, nor anything else which remembers an argument.
And, just to make a little bit fun of a joepistole posting:
The problem is that joepistole has no idea about the real situation in the Russian media. There are many different Russian media, with similarly different reputations, competing with each other in similar ways. Some support communists, some support nationalists, some pro-Western ideas. Many criticize a lot of very different things. As usual in the media in all controlled democracies. There are, as in the West, some groups of the population which have no own media presentation at all, and will be used as scapegoats by everybody. Like the pedophiles. So, for a large part, you have symmetry. The main differences - those between nationalist, communists, and Putinists, those between supporters of more state resp. more market in economy, are represented in the mass media. But they have also a large basic agreement - roughly "make Russia great again" - similar to the basic agreement around American or so values in the Western press. It is what you need for a controlled democracy, which is necessary in any big state. (Really working democracy is possible only on the base of extreme decentralization of power, like in Swiss, or a really small state like Luxembourg.) The ownership structure is comparable with those in, say, Germany. Some media state controlled, some private.
But there is nonetheless a difference, namely that there are no relevant parts of the Western propaganda which are not discussed and criticized. The Western position is well-known - and rejected. This rejection is not based on not knowing them, but based on knowing the counterarguments. There is no such representation of the Russian position (or of any other big player in the world) in the Western media.
To repeat myself, all I see is another obfuscated copout, just as you seem to skillfully perform in any debate or difference of opinion you are in....not just with me either.
Or in more simple language, you have nothing to support your utterly stupid conspiracy idea and the reporting as generally accepted by reasonable people, of the 9/11 terrorist incident.
The following lengthy rant bypassed as just more silly unsupported propaganda that you are known to throw about, rather then confront the truth and reality.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
LOL. Given that I have not even proposed an idea of what really happened there at all, I also have no support for the idea which exists only in your fantasy.
It seems, you have, yet, to understand the difference between the rejection of some particular proposal (in this case: of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory) and support for some other particular proposal.
By the way, about yet another example of Western media lies: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/10/assad-says-the-boy-in-the-ambulance-is-fake-we-show-why.html
some more fotos and a video http://rusvesna.su/news/1476642213
Last edited:
More obfuscation for our sheep herder.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Can you explain the point of naming me sheep herder?
Looks like total confusion on your side about my explanation that there is a difference between you (the sheeple in the center of the herd) and the sheep herder (the guy who gets badges of honor from the sheeple). The sheep herder has to make some own decisions. If one always follows the mainstream, one does not become the herder.
But there is a big difference between me and a sheep herder. The sheep herder has to care about the sheeple, has to take into account their wishes, has to care about the mainstream. He has an own position, but close enough to the mainstream to be attractive to the mainstream. His difference from the mainstream should be small enough to have a chance that the mainstream will follow him. And he would better disagree with the mainstream in not more than one, at most two, points.
I do not have to do this, and don't do this. In science I'm accepting empirical evidence, simply because this is what I care about as a scientist. Not because the mainstream is accepting empirical evidence. In politics, I choose the most consistent political position, even if it has no chance of mainstream support at all - libertarian. And I do not care at all in how many points I disagree with the mainstream. You get the difference?
Looks like total confusion on your side about my explanation that there is a difference between you (the sheeple in the center of the herd) and the sheep herder (the guy who gets badges of honor from the sheeple). The sheep herder has to make some own decisions. If one always follows the mainstream, one does not become the herder.
But there is a big difference between me and a sheep herder. The sheep herder has to care about the sheeple, has to take into account their wishes, has to care about the mainstream. He has an own position, but close enough to the mainstream to be attractive to the mainstream. His difference from the mainstream should be small enough to have a chance that the mainstream will follow him. And he would better disagree with the mainstream in not more than one, at most two, points.
I do not have to do this, and don't do this. In science I'm accepting empirical evidence, simply because this is what I care about as a scientist. Not because the mainstream is accepting empirical evidence. In politics, I choose the most consistent political position, even if it has no chance of mainstream support at all - libertarian. And I do not care at all in how many points I disagree with the mainstream. You get the difference?
Do you think it might be because you are carrying water for a well known fascist dictator? And how is that any different from you calling everyone who doesn't subscribe to your positions, or more accurately Putin's positions, as sheeple? Do you think there might be a connection?
As has been repeatedly brought to your attention, the Western world isn't at all like your beloved Mother Russia for the reasons previously given. You don't seen to understand the word "competition" and what a free market economy is. As you were previously instructed, the Western media isn't by any means homogeneous as it is in your beloved Mother Russia. Because unlike your beloved Mother Russia, there is no single power which controls the media. Media outlets compete with each other in order to deliver the news first, fast, and accurately or in the case of Fox News and conservative media to deliver the ideology to their audiences want.
Wrong, a shepherd doesn't need to take into account the wishes of the sheep. He wouldn't be much of a shepherd if he did. A shepherd needs to know his sheep and be able to control them, and shepherds typically control their flocks with fear and intimidation. A shepherd doesn't need to be emotionally attached to his sheep. A shepherd shouldn't be emotionally attached to his sheep.
Are you now? You are on record eschewing scientific method and empiricism. So are you now trying to change your stripes or should I say sickle?
And where is your evidence that "Joepistole has no idea about the real situtation in Russian media". The fact is the "real situation in the Russian media" is well known and that's your problem. It's also a Russian problem, but most Russians don't know it. As previously pointed out to you the Western equivalent of Russian media is Fox News and American talk radio. The claim to be something they clearly are not. They claim to be fair and balanced, and clearly they are not. Both are controlled by party hacks, and both are used to propagate an ideology. In Russia's case, it is used to propagate the will of the supreme leader, i.e. Putin.
Russia is known to kill reporters for reporting the truth. In independent surveys Russia has consistently ranked near the bottom on measures of freedom of the press.
"The organisation Reporters Without Borders compiles and publishes an annual ranking of countries based upon the organisation's assessment of their press freedom records. In 2013 Russia was ranked 148th out of 179 countries, six places below the previous year, mainly due to the return of Vladimir Putin.[3]Freedom Housecompiles a similar ranking and placed Russia at number 176 out of 197 countries for press freedom for 2013, putting it level with Sudan and Ethiopia.[4]The Committee to Protect Journalists states that Russia was the country with the 10th largest number of journalists killed since 1992, 26 of them since the beginning of 2000, including four from Novaya Gazeta.[5] It also placed Russia at number 9 in the world for numbers of journalists killed with complete impunity.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Russia
In the West reporters aren't killed by their governments.
If you believe that then you are clearly ignorant or dishonest or some combination thereof. As previously pointed out to you, in the West, media outlets compete with each other to be the fastest and most accurate reporter of the news and issues. All issues and sides are discussed, right wing sources excluded. Even Russia's positions are discussed in the Western media. Unfortunately for you comrade, facts matter. The truth matters in the West.
If Russian media was truly as you represent it, it wouldn't be owned and controlled by the state as it is. It would present issues fairly and honestly, and it wouldn't need to kill journalists in order to suppress them.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
No, first, I don't, second, this has nothing to do with herding sheeps.
No, first, I don't (I name sheeple those who believe Western propaganda even in its most primitive appearances), second, this has nothing to do with herding sheeps.
LOL, I'm living since 1989 in a market democracy, Germany. Ok, Germany is far from being a free market, I know. US is a little bit closer, I know.
Unfortunately, I understand as Western media, as Russian media, and can compare them. You have only Western media as a source. So, your comparison of Russian with Western media is only a comparison of Western media with the propaganda image of Russian media in Western media. Which is, of course, in favor of Western media.
A real shepherd has to care a lot about the wishes of the sheeps. If he doesn't, he will remain without sheep after a short time. Or the remaining sheeps will be low quality.
Empiricism is a bad outdated scientific methodology, if you mingle it with the scientific method you only show your incompetence in this domain. Read Popper.
Yes, you do. It's what you have done and what you continue to do. Be honest comrade. You have carried water for Putin all day long and with every post regardless of the circumstances regardless of the the truth.
Denial isn't a river in Egypt comrade.
So you say comrade, but you words, betray you. We have had this discussion many times before. Remember, I married a German national.
Well if you understand Western media then you are clearly dishonest. The truth isn't propaganda comrade. It's just the truth.
As you have been previously told, that's not the case. A "real shepherd" doesn't need to care about the wishes of his sheep as if he could really discern them. A shepherd need only be able to control his flock, and shepherds typically control their flocks with fear and intimidation. Knowing the needs of the flock helps a shepherd control the flock. If a shepherd is a good shepherd he will see to their needs not their wishes.
Finally a little honesty comrade. The truth comes out. You don't subscribe to to scientific method and empiricism.