March 27, 2017, 09:53:08 AM


Author Topic: Russia vs USA  (Read 7664 times)

Offline Aurata

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #40 on: December 25, 2016, 03:52:38 PM »
http://www.snopes.com/

Ah .. snopes..a totally unreliable sycophantic propaganda website for the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton. 

Quote
https://www.channel4.com/

another left wing disinformation source.

Quote
http://www.maryscullyreports.com/

Lol. mary scully is a well-known anti-Semitic communist.



Quote
the Canadian who works for RT.

No.., she is independent. The fact that a journalist may sometimes contribute to a particular news outlet does not mean they are employed by them.

Did you even watch the video? Ms Bartlett backs up all her points with verifiable points  about how the mainstream media is lying about Syria.

ie She cites mainstream using a photo or interviewee for one story, then re-cycling it for an unrelated story months later. These are all checkable facts.


Why is the mainstream media lying about Syria? because they are pushing the globalist agenda of regime change. They want Syria to become another vassal state of Washington.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 06:55:01 PM by Aurata »
Imagine your Korea...

Offline 67uicv29

  • Explorer
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #41 on: December 25, 2016, 07:03:35 PM »
Aurata's claims are the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. So desperate for attention, SAD!

Offline MayorHaggar

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #42 on: December 25, 2016, 09:28:03 PM »
http://www.snopes.com/

Ah .. snopes..a totally unreliable sycophantic propaganda website for the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton. 





Offline some waygug-in

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2016, 11:44:41 PM »
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 12:01:36 AM by some waygug-in »

Offline maximmm

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2016, 12:11:22 AM »
Life is full of questions

Death is full of answers

May you die well and learn.

Offline some waygug-in

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2016, 03:55:33 AM »
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/20/as-the-coup-against-trump-fails-the-threat-against-his-life-rises-paul-craig-roberts/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQfjStEkONI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPDgUMOXDPk

Americans should be thanking their lucky stars that she did not get to be president.

If you really wanted to defeat Trump, you should have stuck with Sanders, because he

would have won.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 06:24:32 AM by some waygug-in »

Offline Aurata

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #46 on: December 29, 2016, 02:41:54 AM »
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-condemns-barack-obama-lifting-military-aid-restrictions-syria-hostile-act-a7497076.html

Obama is making his final power play moves before the US regime change.

Apparently it gets worse..

Quote
With the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, President Obama has effectively put all media under federal control

http://truthfeed.com/video-power-grab-obama-signs-bill-effectively-federalizing-all-media/43671/

Imagine your Korea...

Offline Life Improvement

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1614
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #47 on: December 29, 2016, 08:39:19 AM »

Offline maximmm

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #48 on: December 29, 2016, 12:01:27 PM »
Life is full of questions

Death is full of answers

May you die well and learn.

Offline maximmm

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2016, 06:21:06 PM »
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-29/russia-responds-obama-sanctions

So, Obama made yet another move.

I can't help but agree with this analysis - it's a pretty brilliant move, I must admit.  Either Trump carries on with the current cold war, or he'll be declared a Russian implant.  He's been labeled as being such on many occasions already, but if he now does anything to undermine the current cold war trajectory, he'll have the whole establishment going after him, including all of the intelligence agencies. 


Quote
'The true target of these sanctions is Donald Trump.

By imposing sanctions on Russia, Obama is lending the authority of the Presidency to the CIA’s claims of Russian hacking, daring Trump to deny their truth.

If Trump as President allows the sanctions to continue, he will be deemed to have accepted the CIA’s claims of Russian hacking as true.  If Trump cancels the sanctions when he becomes President, he will be accused of being Russia’s stooge.

It is a well known lawyer’s trick, and Obama the former lawyer doubtless calculates that either way Trump’s legitimacy and authority as President will be damaged, with the insinuation that he owes his Presidency to the Russians now given extra force.'

 
Life is full of questions

Death is full of answers

May you die well and learn.

Offline TorontoToronto

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #50 on: December 31, 2016, 12:00:14 AM »
Ah .. snopes..a totally unreliable sycophantic propaganda website for the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton. 

Interesting assertion. Based on what evidence?

Offline Aurata

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #51 on: December 31, 2016, 01:14:58 AM »
Ah .. snopes..a totally unreliable sycophantic propaganda website for the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton. 

Interesting assertion. Based on what evidence?


Quote
Rumor-disproving website Snopes has proven itself especially unreliable on all matters political, and it did so again this week when it tried to “bust” the myth that President Obama had paid Iran $400 million in exchange for American citizens being held in Iranian jails.

As you may recall, back in January, the Obama administration managed to win the release of the men. Within days, nearly half a billion dollars was transferred to Iran.

Both Snopes and the Obama administration insist that...
http://conservativetribune.com/snopes-busted-obamas-lies/
Imagine your Korea...

Offline TorontoToronto

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #52 on: December 31, 2016, 02:38:50 AM »
I'm not really sure the inaccuracy or why Snopes is required to report the opinion of one Iranian rando. Iran has been hungry for the return of its own assets frozen for decades after the American hostage incident.

I don't see anything in the linked CT article that has anything other than the word of one Iranian rando to dispute the what motivated the turn of Iran's assets.

Offline some waygug-in

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #53 on: December 31, 2016, 02:48:49 AM »
Do a google search "snopes bias"

You'll find plenty to read.

Offline Aurata

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #54 on: December 31, 2016, 02:56:27 AM »
Obama has completely lost it.

Quote
The United States has expelled 35 Russian diplomats and closed two Russian compounds in a response that Barack Obama says was "necessary and appropriate" against "efforts to harm US interests".

Our correspondent said: "The White House is calling this a national emergency. This is one of the strongest responses we've ever seen from the US against what it says was a state-sponsored cyberattack."

Obama said that all Americans should be alarmed by Russia's actions, adding that data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government.

Al Jazeera's Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington DC, said that the US administration had not provided any proof of Russia's involvement other than the flat accusations that 17 US intelligence agencies say so.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/expels-35-russian-diplomats-cyber-attacks-161229192854580.html

As usual, it is left to the Russians to keep a clear head:

Quote
Vladimir Putin has rejected plans to expel US diplomats in a tit-for-tat retaliation against Washington - and instead invited their children to visit the Kremlin.
http://news.sky.com/story/putin-no-expulsions-in-response-to-us-sanctions-10711864

Quote
Giuliani: There's no question that the intelligence that Obama has been getting has either been incompetent or politicized.

I would urge President trump..have his own people do their own independent intelligence report, so that we get beyond what has been very flawed intelligence reports.

You know all those reports we were getting last year, that president Obama was getting the reports he wanted to hear: that we were winning the war on isis, etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYSwf6a2IN0

There is not a jot of evidence for Russian "hacking": this simply follows a pattern of demonization and provocation of Russia that has been the deliberate policy of the globalist neo-con administrations of Obama, bush and Clinton.

For the billionth time, can someone please answer the question: What has Russia ever done to the US?
Imagine your Korea...

Offline TorontoToronto

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #55 on: December 31, 2016, 03:41:10 AM »
Do a google search "snopes bias"

You'll find plenty to read.

You can say that about anything. Most of it is not worth reading. I am, however, interested when people make assertions what they base those assertions upon.

Props to Aurata for actually linking to something. I've seen the bias accusation and when I ask what they feel is biased I get little more than hand waving. That said, I don't find Aurata's assertion well backed because a biased right wing web page found some random Iranian who has a different opinion about the nature of the $400 million transfer and Snopes didn't cite him.

If the President of Iran or someone clearly in the chain made it clear, however, this was a ransom payment and Snopes failed to cite him, then an accusation of bias might have some teeth, especially if there was a pattern of Snopes failing to "give both sides" when appropriate from a journalism POV.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 03:49:38 AM by TorontoToronto »

Offline some waygug-in

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #56 on: December 31, 2016, 04:07:39 AM »
OK if you don't like reading there's plenty of criticism of snopes on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CUMIvrp3wc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGf5_N6zwaE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5FrenVxOZc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzwfeIR8gsY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LimZhkArmXU

But you'll probably say they aren't worth watching so, I guess I give up.


« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 05:19:33 PM by some waygug-in »

Offline TorontoToronto

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #57 on: December 31, 2016, 05:26:50 AM »
I like reading. I do find youtube videos a waste of time unless the person linking the video can briefly summarize what they find compelling in the video. You'd agree it would be a waste of time commenting on what you think is compelling only to discover the person linking the video finds those merely peripheral points and you should have been paying attention to a whole other part of the video.

Regarding your link, I'm not sure how that is evidence of the assertion of journalistic bias. The founders are like a lot of married people: they're not happily married and the husband was stepping out on his wife. Well, so did Einstein. That makes what point? Embezzle is a pretty strong word, although that's just an allegation by the ex-wife. Not sure if you've been in a divorce or even a bad break up but exs accuse each other of horrible things. Fox News is or isn't biased. That the CEO was allegedly sexually harassing female employees is not very strong evidence of bias. And even if the husband is thrown into jail for stealing corporate funds, how is that evidence of journalistic bias?

Maybe we're not using the term bias in the same way. Surely you don't mean "I don't like the conclusions therefore there must be bias." By bias I mean a pattern of articles where the author start with the conclusion, cherry picks, quote mining, and demonstrates a pattern of ignoring facts and relevant testimony that argue against the author's per-determined conclusion.  Like if you were doing a paper in a university-level media criticism class, and you suggested infidelity and using corporate funds to bang prostitutes were evidence for bias in a particular direction, you should not be surprised if you got a big red F.

Offline some waygug-in

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #58 on: December 31, 2016, 06:03:49 AM »
Well draw your own conclusions.

Perhaps this is more your speed:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#52814d1a1e02


Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”

It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I'd be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I'm precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”

This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.

In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it's secret.”

It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond.

When I presented a set of subsequent clarifying questions to David, he provided responses to some and not to others. Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It's pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?”

That is actually a fascinating response to come from a fact checking organization that prides itself on its claimed neutrality. Think about it this way – what if there was a fact checking organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from the ranks of Breitbart and Infowars? Most liberals would likely dismiss such an organization as partisan and biased. Similarly, an organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from Occupy Democrats and Huffington Post might be dismissed by conservatives as partisan and biased. In fact, when I asked several colleagues for their thoughts on this issue this morning, the unanimous response back was that people with strong self-declared political leanings on either side should not be a part of a fact checking organization and all had incorrectly assumed that Snopes would have felt the same way and had a blanket policy against placing partisan individuals as fact checkers.

In fact, this is one of the reasons that fact checking organizations must be transparent and open. If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?

Since you say you like reading here's more for you:

http://yournewswire.com/snopes-caught-lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised/

It's long and quite tedious at times, but if you wish here is the conclusion of the article:

(see below)

The verdict: Snopes lied. It deliberately presented a Day 2 photo as being taken on Day 1, because it was desperate to disprove the claims by “right wing sites” that the Democrats were minimizing the presence of the American flag.

That’s the end for Snopes. Even one example of bias-fed misrepresentation ends any justifiable trust readers can have that the site is fair, objective and trustworthy. Snopes has proven that it has a political and partisan agenda, and that it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers to advance it.

Can it recover? Maybe, but not without…

…Getting out of the political fact-checking business.

…Firing Dan Evon, who used the misleading flag photos, as well as Kim LaCapria.

…Confessing its betrayal of trust and capitulation to partisan bias, apologizing, and taking remedial measures.

With all the misinformation on the web, a trustworthy web site like Snopes used to be is essential. Unfortunately, a site that is the purveyor of falsity cannot also be the antidote for it.

I’ll miss Snopes, but until it acknowledges its ethics breach and convinces me that the site’s days of spinning and lying were a short-lived aberration, I won’t be using it again.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 06:37:37 AM by some waygug-in »

Offline TorontoToronto

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russia vs USA
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2017, 12:07:34 AM »
Again, I'm not sure about how a guy not wanting to comment on his private life and a messy divorce implies a whole site is biased.

Regarding the flag photo. Snopes made an error running a day 2 photo not a day 1 photo? Snopes isn't 100% perfect and makes errors? Oh. No. Snopes points out it is not perfect. It actually has a few fake debunkings (e.g., KFC changed its name because Kentucky was going to demand a royalty) to caution people that they need to double check Snopes articles. It doesn't pretend to be an unimpeachable source or the arbiter of truth. That's called a straw man in my business.

Also, it's an entirely bizarre claim that the DNC would not have any American flags. This would be first in history. Do you honestly doubt the DNC banned US flags?

Anyway, one would have to be more than drunk to claim Snopes is 100% accurate. To claim otherwise is a straw man, as evidence by Snopes' own cautions about its accuracy.

Sorry, I still don't see a pattern of left leaning bias. A couple errors doesn't establish that. You would still be laughed out of a university level media criticism class if that was the evidence for you claim. A pattern of errors that are favor of leftist groups and topics and/or a pattern of errors that cast rightist groups and topics in an ill light would be better evidence for bias.

I don't expect anyone to actually do that. People are happy to make claims and then push away from the table and not do the hard work.


 

Recent Lesson Plans

Soccer Themed Activities 축구 by eslkidz
[Today at 03:43:25 AM]


Harry Potter Hand Puppet/Cootie Catcher Game by JoSis
[Yesterday at 10:46:23 PM]


template version 5 by hysally
[March 25, 2017, 11:55:39 PM]


tempate version 4 by hysally
[March 25, 2017, 11:54:25 PM]


tempate version 3 by hysally
[March 25, 2017, 11:52:44 PM]

Buy/Sell/Trade

Employment