Merged Ukraine erupts in riots and general strike.

[Childlike Empress]

Just watched the segment magellan was talking about and it's well worth the time. Abby has Amber Lyon on, who quit CNN after her documentary about Bahrain was censored. Bahrain, for those who don't know, is a giant US military base with two attractions: a Formula 1 track and a vicious little "Kingdom" killing its own people since 2011 with next to no reporting by the pre$$titudes.

 

[Snarf]

Abby has Amber Lyon on, who quit CNN after her documentary about Bahrain was censored.

CNN (International) censored parts of it, CNN (US) aired it in full. She didn't quit, she was let go due to restructuring.

 

[uke2se]

CNN (International) censored parts of it, CNN (US) aired it in full. She didn't quit, she was let go due to restructuring.

Well, that kinda destroys CE's narrative...

 

[Caustic Logic]

Yatsenyuk, man a bit much of a Soros suck-up. Does partner mean you get money? Will he get beat down for it by the Skinheads, and sent back to fetch them more?

I don't suppose it means much, but his partners list - was SKG Dreamworks included?

Just so I get this straight:

A bunch of pro-democracy organizations in the US, Eastern European countries, Western European businesses, and native Ukrainians supporting the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent and sovereign state = imperialism.

Russian troops occupying parts of Ukraine and the Crimean parliament declaring that they're no longer part of Ukraine but instead are part of Russia = not imperialism.

That doesn't sound right, does it? I'll grant that. Even if you had managed to frame both sides with equal cynicism (it's a feat), I'd say that formula is more wrong than its opposite. But still its opposite is wrong. "A bunch of pro-democracy organizations in the US, Eastern European countries, Western European businesses, and native Ukrainians supporting" a mob-driven, violent coup, with unclear pacts with the Ultrantionalist and Fascist parties, murky snipers demonizing the President, a traumatized police force vanished in the lieu of neo-Nazi gangs, opposition members beaten and intimidated, their ideas threatened with illegalization, parliament cowed and partly emptied, rushing through dramatic legislation, unknown agendas getting the fast track ...

Or is it more fair to say both are types of imperialism? Russia's, obviously, is more classic-style, overt, and heavy-handed. "Ours" is more light-handed, like a pickpocket. You don't always know just when it even happened, or what happened. For example, right now you're preparing to tell me that this didn't just happen in Ukraine. I rest my case.

And whatever you say about one type vs. another, "ours" was employed first, and provoked the Russian counter-move. Both are deplorable. Both were avoidable. The lesson "we" are supposed to draw, and should, is this - "your "freedom" (free-market) meddling and sphere expansion is going to get more and more expensive. Especially as you get more brazen about it and work increasingly with scumbags like Al Qaeda and neo-Nazi types in recent years. Expect resistance now."

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well, that kinda destroys CE's narrative...

Do you expect that CNN would announce that she was fired for her views or actions? Was there a study done proving that was the cause? Or did CNN just say that was the sad fact, there was no way they could keep her? It's the last one, isn't it?

As for RT as a propaganda outfit, at least partly true, sure. TBV put it well enough. That said, they're capable of telling the truth sometimes, accidentally or otherwise, of airing varied views or not firing people for breaking "script" of maybe not even having that much of a "script" compared to, say ... CNN (one of the many propaganda outfits of, basically, Wall Street, who fully owns it all and, yes, Wall Street has it in for Putin and it drives the reporting if you pay the slightest attention).

Point being, the blanket dismissal as worthless of one side's reporting, compared to the almost total acceptance of another's, is the real problem with skepticism here.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Do you expect that CNN would announce that she was fired for her views or actions? Was there a study done proving that was the cause? Or did CNN just say that was the sad fact, there was no way they could keep her? It's the last one, isn't it?

Actually it's someone called "Snarf" who just said it while we have a quite articulate person not needing me to tell her "narrative" on the other side.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Directed at both. One offered it as a counter-fact, the other took it as one. Team fail.

 

[tyr_13]

Do you expect that CNN would announce that she was fired for her views or actions? Was there a study done proving that was the cause? Or did CNN just say that was the sad fact, there was no way they could keep her? It's the last one, isn't it?

As for RT as a propaganda outfit, at least partly true, sure. TBV put it well enough. That said, they're capable of telling the truth sometimes, accidentally or otherwise, of airing varied views or not firing people for breaking "script" of maybe not even having that much of a "script" compared to, say ... CNN (one of the many propaganda outfits of, basically, Wall Street, who fully owns it all and, yes, Wall Street has it in for Putin and it drives the reporting if you pay the slightest attention).

Point being, the blanket dismissal as worthless of one side's reporting, compared to the almost total acceptance of another's, is the real problem with skepticism here.

CNN did a huge restructuring effecting their entire lineup and a lot of people. That's actually true.

Skeptics are following the evidence. You just don't like where it leads. Again.

 

[Ziggurat]

CNN (one of the many propaganda outfits of, basically, Wall Street, who fully owns it all and, yes, Wall Street has it in for Putin and it drives the reporting if you pay the slightest attention).

Your view of Wall Street as some monolithic entity which controls CNN is conspiratorial thinking of the worst kind. Is Wall Street in turn controlled by a secret cabal of Jooos?


I don't have a lot of respect for CNN. They are craven cowards. CNN cannot be trusted to report the truth, but it is far more likely to cover up crimes of dictators like Putin than it is to do so for democracies. We know this both because of basic logic (dictators will retaliate strongly against hostile press, democracies can't) and because of history (see above link).

 

[uke2se]

Do you expect that CNN would announce that she was fired for her views or actions? Was there a study done proving that was the cause?

Most people don't have studies conducted into why they were laid off from a job.

Or did CNN just say that was the sad fact, there was no way they could keep her? It's the last one, isn't it?

CNN did a restructuring. If you have other information, spill it. If all you have are innuendos (it is, isn't it?) then you can take them to the conspiracy forum.

As for RT as a propaganda outfit, at least partly true, sure. TBV put it well enough. That said, they're capable of telling the truth sometimes, accidentally or otherwise, of airing varied views or not firing people for breaking "script" of maybe not even having that much of a "script" compared to, say ...

Considering the fact that RT was set up to promote Kremlin propaganda and make the West look bad, they probably have a script.

CNN (one of the many propaganda outfits of, basically, Wall Street, who fully owns it all and, yes, Wall Street has it in for Putin and it drives the reporting if you pay the slightest attention).

Wall Street isn't a person.

Point being, the blanket dismissal as worthless of one side's reporting, compared to the almost total acceptance of another's, is the real problem with skepticism here.

Nobody but CE and possibly you are doing that.

 

[Snarf]

Directed at both. One offered it as a counter-fact, the other took it as one. Team fail.

Which part(s) did I get wrong?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Nobody but CE and possibly you are doing that.

Where did I or CE ever reject a single CNN article flat out for being propaganda? Where have all you others dismissed RT flat out for being propaganda?

Did you know just saying the opposite of me doesn't make you make sense?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Which part(s) did I get wrong?

That it's a fact that CNN let her go for restructuring. There was some, I hear, making it the possible reason. But it's also possible that's just their explanation, and she was really fired for her criticism. So it doesn't prove anything. It's not a fact but a claim.

 

[uke2se]

Where did I or CE ever reject a single CNN article flat out for being propaganda? Where have all you others dismissed RT flat out for being propaganda?

Did you know just saying the opposite of me doesn't make you make sense?

Fair enough.

RT is pure propaganda and CNN isn't always propaganda. Glad we agree.

 

[A'isha]

I never get tired of seeing Childlike Empress call the Western media "pre$$titudes" while repeatedly citing Russia Today and PressTV.

 

[uke2se]

That it's a fact that CNN let her go for restructuring. There was some, I hear, making it the possible reason. But it's also possible that's just their explanation, and she was really fired for her criticism. So it doesn't prove anything. It's not a fact but a claim.

Do you have other information? If not, stop it with the innuendos.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That it's a fact that CNN let her go for restructuring. There was some, I hear, making it the possible reason. But it's also possible that's just their explanation, and she was really fired for her criticism. So it doesn't prove anything. It's not a fact but a claim.

She says that she quit over the censorship, not that she was fired.

Snarf indeed got the "provide evidence for your claims" part wrong. At least he admits the censorship, which is the point here.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I never get tired of seeing Childlike Empress call the Western media "pre$$titudes" while repeatedly citing Russia Today and PressTV.

Glad you're entertained. Can't say the feeling is mutual - your trolling attempts are rather boring and your obvious cluelessness about the thread topic doesn't warrant the frequency with which you pop up here.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Clear to see:

 

[LSSBB]

Clear to see:

What reason do you think there is for the US to have all those forward deployed bases? When you answer please take WWII and the Cold War into account, in addition to which countries were under Soviet rule and how that happened.