Discussion:
It’s time to completely defund NPR and halt its dangerous, dishonest anti-America rhetoric rooted in hatred of Trump and racism toward whites
(too old to reply)
GLOBALIST
2017-11-07 18:22:19 UTC
Permalink
It’s time to completely defund NPR and halt its dangerous, dishonest anti-America rhetoric rooted in hatred of Trump and racism toward whites
Thursday, November 02, 2017 by Jayson Veley

When you think about it, NPR, or National Public Radio, really isn’t much different than networks like MSNBC and CNN. They all are hellbent on dragging this country further and further to the left, and each one is willing to spread lies and propaganda to do it. Other than the fact that one is on the radio and the other is on TV, perhaps the only real difference between NPR and left-wing cable news networks is that NPR is incredibly boring to listen to. At least when Rachel Maddow or Don Lemon spread lies about conservatives, they do it with some passion; on NPR, it’s monotone voices the entire way through.

Just as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS have done since the election of Donald Trump last November, NPR has cranked their propaganda knob up a couple of notches in hopes that they can derail the president’s administration and his agenda. Like typical leftists, the commentators over at NPR are always quick to paint the president in a bad light, often taking advantage of tragedies or civil unrest to imply that Trump and his supporters as racists and bigots.

This was the case made recently by Paul Craig Roberts, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy, in an article published on his website last month. Venting his sheer disgust for National Public Radio, Roberts wrote, “Listening to NPR this morning confirmed what I already knew. Charlottesville is being turned into another nail in President Trump’s coffin.

“NPR had no interest whatsoever in reporting the actual facts about what had occurred in Charlottesville,” Roberts continued. “The several ‘interviews’ with the like-minded were orchestrated to produce the desired propaganda result: It was all Trump’s fault. It was Trump’s fault for many reasons. He had stirred up White Supremacists and Nazis by appealing during the presidential election campaign to their supremacist views with his slogan ‘America first.’”

Paul Craig Roberts makes a very important point here: Left-wing networks like NPR have accumulated far too much control over what information is relayed to the people, and what information is withheld. Every single time they get in front of a TV camera or sit down behind a microphone, they betray the American people by intentionally filling their heads with rhetoric, half-truths and flat-out lies.

It’s unfortunate, but the one-sidedness of media networks like NPR serves as further proof that traditional journalism in America is dead. The practice of presenting both sides in a fair and balanced way has essentially been replaced by a political game of “catch me if you can” and “tear the other side down at all costs.” It has become more about silencing opposing viewpoints than about giving the American people the information they need to reach their own conclusions.

NPR’s biased coverage of the Charlottesville riots and their attempt to brand President Trump as a racist is only one example of how the entire network essentially exists to destroy anything that isn’t big government progressivism. Just days before the 2016 presidential election, for instance, former National Public Radio CEO Ken Stern did an interview with Vanity Fair, in which he bluntly stated that it was necessary to abandon objectivity in order to defeat Donald Trump. “Trump is an affront to American democracy and common decency, and if this is the price to pay for keeping him out of the White House, so be it,” Stern said, referring to major media organizations abandoning their objectivity. (Related: The mainstream media has abandoned all credibility following their biased coverage of James Comey and Donald Trump.)

For these reasons and dozens more, it is long past time to defund National Public Radio once and for all. The American taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize the spread of political propaganda and lies about the president of the United States. It is time to finally fight back and take a stand against the constant stream of anti-Americanism and progressive rhetoric being broadcasted across the airwaves.

==============================
I picked up on this about 2 years ago , before the election
I will listen to some of it's arts and entertainment shows
but any news or political shows I turn off faster
than lightening.
El Castor
2017-11-08 08:27:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:22:19 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
It’s time to completely defund NPR and halt its dangerous, dishonest anti-America rhetoric rooted in hatred of Trump and racism toward whites
Thursday, November 02, 2017 by Jayson Veley
Amen. I am at a loss to understand why after 10 months Trump hasn't
cut the funds. It would have been first on my list.
b***@gmail.com
2017-11-08 09:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Amen. I am at a loss to understand why after 10 months Trump hasn't
cut the funds. It would have been first on my list.
I am at a loss to understand why you think this way. Here, my radio
tuner is stuck on the station. While the shift in funding has promoted
much more local programming a lot of the news/programs come from the
BBC.

Perhaps you would like it more if NPR programmed more from RT?
El Castor
2017-11-08 19:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I am at a loss to understand why after 10 months Trump hasn't
cut the funds. It would have been first on my list.
I am at a loss to understand why you think this way. Here, my radio
tuner is stuck on the station. While the shift in funding has promoted
much more local programming a lot of the news/programs come from the
BBC.
Perhaps you would like it more if NPR programmed more from RT?
I would like to see NPR pay it's own way without taxpayer dollars.
Broadcasting taxpayer funded domestic political propaganda is not the
role of the government. Would you feel the same if Trump was funding
Fox News? Of course you wouldn't. That's why you are a hypocrite.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-09 02:14:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 11:31:46 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I am at a loss to understand why after 10 months Trump hasn't
cut the funds. It would have been first on my list.
I am at a loss to understand why you think this way. Here, my radio
tuner is stuck on the station. While the shift in funding has promoted
much more local programming a lot of the news/programs come from the
BBC.
Perhaps you would like it more if NPR programmed more from RT?
I would like to see NPR pay it's own way without taxpayer dollars.
Broadcasting taxpayer funded domestic political propaganda is not the
role of the government. Would you feel the same if Trump was funding
Fox News? Of course you wouldn't. That's why you are a hypocrite.
It maybe would be better for NPR to be free of
any government meddling, though I suppose the
Republican party would still try to censor it even if
the government wasn't paying anything.

I already contribute to keep KQED TV and KDFC
radio going. I'm not sure if my contributions to
KQED TV already support KQED radio. I rarely
listen to KQED radio but it is on my "favourites",
and my son listens to it a lot when he's here. I
don't know if it's possible to listen to Rush
Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly in San Francisco. If it
is, I must have bypassed them when I was
setting up my "favourite" radio stations.

So far, it is still allowed to watch RT on San
Francisco TV, but who knows how long that
will last, the way things are going.
El Castor
2017-11-09 08:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 11:31:46 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I am at a loss to understand why after 10 months Trump hasn't
cut the funds. It would have been first on my list.
I am at a loss to understand why you think this way. Here, my radio
tuner is stuck on the station. While the shift in funding has promoted
much more local programming a lot of the news/programs come from the
BBC.
Perhaps you would like it more if NPR programmed more from RT?
I would like to see NPR pay it's own way without taxpayer dollars.
Broadcasting taxpayer funded domestic political propaganda is not the
role of the government. Would you feel the same if Trump was funding
Fox News? Of course you wouldn't. That's why you are a hypocrite.
It maybe would be better for NPR to be free of
any government meddling, though I suppose the
Republican party would still try to censor it even if
the government wasn't paying anything.
I already contribute to keep KQED TV and KDFC
radio going. I'm not sure if my contributions to
KQED TV already support KQED radio. I rarely
listen to KQED radio but it is on my "favourites",
and my son listens to it a lot when he's here. I
don't know if it's possible to listen to Rush
Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly in San Francisco. If it
is, I must have bypassed them when I was
setting up my "favourite" radio stations.
So far, it is still allowed to watch RT on San
Francisco TV, but who knows how long that
will last, the way things are going.
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't. As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government, so maybe, depending on the law.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-09 12:45:20 UTC
Permalink
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 11:31:46 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I am at a loss to understand why after 10 months Trump hasn't
cut the funds. It would have been first on my list.
I am at a loss to understand why you think this way. Here, my radio
tuner is stuck on the station. While the shift in funding has promoted
much more local programming a lot of the news/programs come from the
BBC.
Perhaps you would like it more if NPR programmed more from RT?
I would like to see NPR pay it's own way without taxpayer dollars.
Broadcasting taxpayer funded domestic political propaganda is not the
role of the government. Would you feel the same if Trump was funding
Fox News? Of course you wouldn't. That's why you are a hypocrite.
It maybe would be better for NPR to be free of
any government meddling, though I suppose the
Republican party would still try to censor it even if
the government wasn't paying anything.
I already contribute to keep KQED TV and KDFC
radio going. I'm not sure if my contributions to
KQED TV already support KQED radio. I rarely
listen to KQED radio but it is on my "favourites",
and my son listens to it a lot when he's here. I
don't know if it's possible to listen to Rush
Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly in San Francisco. If it
is, I must have bypassed them when I was
setting up my "favourite" radio stations.
So far, it is still allowed to watch RT on San
Francisco TV, but who knows how long that
will last, the way things are going.
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.

I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.

The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
El Castor
2017-11-10 08:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 11:31:46 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I am at a loss to understand why after 10 months Trump hasn't
cut the funds. It would have been first on my list.
I am at a loss to understand why you think this way. Here, my radio
tuner is stuck on the station. While the shift in funding has promoted
much more local programming a lot of the news/programs come from the
BBC.
Perhaps you would like it more if NPR programmed more from RT?
I would like to see NPR pay it's own way without taxpayer dollars.
Broadcasting taxpayer funded domestic political propaganda is not the
role of the government. Would you feel the same if Trump was funding
Fox News? Of course you wouldn't. That's why you are a hypocrite.
It maybe would be better for NPR to be free of
any government meddling, though I suppose the
Republican party would still try to censor it even if
the government wasn't paying anything.
I already contribute to keep KQED TV and KDFC
radio going. I'm not sure if my contributions to
KQED TV already support KQED radio. I rarely
listen to KQED radio but it is on my "favourites",
and my son listens to it a lot when he's here. I
don't know if it's possible to listen to Rush
Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly in San Francisco. If it
is, I must have bypassed them when I was
setting up my "favourite" radio stations.
So far, it is still allowed to watch RT on San
Francisco TV, but who knows how long that
will last, the way things are going.
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist. As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do. And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech. The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-10 13:45:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
El Castor
2017-11-10 20:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-10 21:14:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
El Castor
2017-11-11 03:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-11 03:56:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:22:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
I'll answer "who", rather than get into word games.
In my opinion, you are.

You're free to have any opinion you want of me.
El Castor
2017-11-11 08:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:22:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
I'll answer "who", rather than get into word games.
In my opinion, you are.
You're free to have any opinion you want of me.
Fascism, or Germany's National Socialism, means central government
control, but not ownership, of the economy, with a strong dose of
nationalism thrown in. Basically a model for European socialism, minus
the nationalism.
islander
2017-11-11 14:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:22:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
I'll answer "who", rather than get into word games.
In my opinion, you are.
You're free to have any opinion you want of me.
Fascism, or Germany's National Socialism, means central government
control, but not ownership, of the economy, with a strong dose of
nationalism thrown in. Basically a model for European socialism, minus
the nationalism.
You are mistaken. Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian
nationalism characterized by dictatorial power and forcible suppression
of opposition and control of industry and commerce. It is about as far
from socialism as one can get, much closer to free market capitalism
with government protection against any interference with industry and
commerce. Both Trump and Putin exhibit traits of fascism, very similar
to Mussolini.
Gary
2017-11-11 16:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:22:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
I'll answer "who", rather than get into word games.
In my opinion, you are.
You're free to have any opinion you want of me.
Fascism, or Germany's National Socialism, means central government
control, but not ownership, of the economy, with a strong dose of
nationalism thrown in. Basically a model for European socialism, minus
the nationalism.
You are mistaken. Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian
nationalism characterized by dictatorial power and forcible suppression
of opposition and control of industry and commerce. It is about as far
from socialism as one can get, much closer to free market capitalism
with government protection against any interference with industry and
commerce. Both Trump and Putin exhibit traits of fascism, very similar
to Mussolini.
Most people tend to "group" things together too freely. The great European evil of the
1930s and 40s was not Fascism in and of itself. It was Hitler. And if Hitler had
gained power as a Democrat, Republican or Socialist -- things would have been just as
evil.

That is not to say I am a great supporter or fan of Fascism. But then -- neither am I
a great believer in any of the political parties.
El Castor
2017-11-11 17:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:22:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
I'll answer "who", rather than get into word games.
In my opinion, you are.
You're free to have any opinion you want of me.
Fascism, or Germany's National Socialism, means central government
control, but not ownership, of the economy, with a strong dose of
nationalism thrown in. Basically a model for European socialism, minus
the nationalism.
You are mistaken. Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian
nationalism characterized by dictatorial power and forcible suppression
of opposition and control of industry and commerce. It is about as far
from socialism as one can get, much closer to free market capitalism
with government protection against any interference with industry and
commerce. Both Trump and Putin exhibit traits of fascism, very similar
to Mussolini.
Let's take a step back. Did I not say that socialism lacked the
nationalism of fascism. Yes, I did. Both share strong central
government control and nationalization of elements of the economy. The
difference is socialism is a kinder gentler version of fascism? Kinder
and gentler can be in the eye of the beholder. The latest nation to
fall to socialism is Venezuela. Or is it fascism? Which?
islander
2017-11-12 00:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:22:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
I'll answer "who", rather than get into word games.
In my opinion, you are.
You're free to have any opinion you want of me.
Fascism, or Germany's National Socialism, means central government
control, but not ownership, of the economy, with a strong dose of
nationalism thrown in. Basically a model for European socialism, minus
the nationalism.
You are mistaken. Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian
nationalism characterized by dictatorial power and forcible suppression
of opposition and control of industry and commerce. It is about as far
from socialism as one can get, much closer to free market capitalism
with government protection against any interference with industry and
commerce. Both Trump and Putin exhibit traits of fascism, very similar
to Mussolini.
Let's take a step back. Did I not say that socialism lacked the
nationalism of fascism. Yes, I did. Both share strong central
government control and nationalization of elements of the economy. The
difference is socialism is a kinder gentler version of fascism? Kinder
and gentler can be in the eye of the beholder. The latest nation to
fall to socialism is Venezuela. Or is it fascism? Which?
Perhaps you didn't parse the sentence in the above correctly:
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.

Not:
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
El Castor
2017-11-12 01:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:22:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
I'll answer "who", rather than get into word games.
In my opinion, you are.
You're free to have any opinion you want of me.
Fascism, or Germany's National Socialism, means central government
control, but not ownership, of the economy, with a strong dose of
nationalism thrown in. Basically a model for European socialism, minus
the nationalism.
You are mistaken. Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian
nationalism characterized by dictatorial power and forcible suppression
of opposition and control of industry and commerce. It is about as far
from socialism as one can get, much closer to free market capitalism
with government protection against any interference with industry and
commerce. Both Trump and Putin exhibit traits of fascism, very similar
to Mussolini.
Let's take a step back. Did I not say that socialism lacked the
nationalism of fascism. Yes, I did. Both share strong central
government control and nationalization of elements of the economy. The
difference is socialism is a kinder gentler version of fascism? Kinder
and gentler can be in the eye of the beholder. The latest nation to
fall to socialism is Venezuela. Or is it fascism? Which?
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Ah, the comma! Getting back to my question --- Venezuela, socialist or
fascist?

CARACAS, Aug 1 (Reuters) - More than a dozen of 34 radio stations
ordered shut by the Venezuelan government went off the air on
Saturday, part of President Hugo Chavez’s drive to extend his
socialist revolution to the media.
http://www.reuters.com/article/venezuela-media/update-2-venezuela-begins-shutdown-of-34-radio-stations-idUSN0146551720090801

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — A radio executive in Venezuela says two
stations that included critical coverage of the government have been
shut down after their broadcast licenses were not renewed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-venezuela-shuts-2-radio-stations-orders-military-exercises-2017-8

"Venezuela Agents Arrest Opposition Leaders In Midnight Raids"
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540790886/venezuela-agents-arrest-opposition-leaders-in-midnight-raids
islander
2017-11-12 14:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:22:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
I'll answer "who", rather than get into word games.
In my opinion, you are.
You're free to have any opinion you want of me.
Fascism, or Germany's National Socialism, means central government
control, but not ownership, of the economy, with a strong dose of
nationalism thrown in. Basically a model for European socialism, minus
the nationalism.
You are mistaken. Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian
nationalism characterized by dictatorial power and forcible suppression
of opposition and control of industry and commerce. It is about as far
from socialism as one can get, much closer to free market capitalism
with government protection against any interference with industry and
commerce. Both Trump and Putin exhibit traits of fascism, very similar
to Mussolini.
Let's take a step back. Did I not say that socialism lacked the
nationalism of fascism. Yes, I did. Both share strong central
government control and nationalization of elements of the economy. The
difference is socialism is a kinder gentler version of fascism? Kinder
and gentler can be in the eye of the beholder. The latest nation to
fall to socialism is Venezuela. Or is it fascism? Which?
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Ah, the comma! Getting back to my question --- Venezuela, socialist or
fascist?
CARACAS, Aug 1 (Reuters) - More than a dozen of 34 radio stations
ordered shut by the Venezuelan government went off the air on
Saturday, part of President Hugo Chavez’s drive to extend his
socialist revolution to the media.
http://www.reuters.com/article/venezuela-media/update-2-venezuela-begins-shutdown-of-34-radio-stations-idUSN0146551720090801
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — A radio executive in Venezuela says two
stations that included critical coverage of the government have been
shut down after their broadcast licenses were not renewed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-venezuela-shuts-2-radio-stations-orders-military-exercises-2017-8
"Venezuela Agents Arrest Opposition Leaders In Midnight Raids"
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540790886/venezuela-agents-arrest-opposition-leaders-in-midnight-raids
Venezuela is hardly a poster child for socialism. Nor is it fascist.
It is just another sad South American country with a lot of corruption
and incompetent leaders.

As I have reminded you many times before, I do not advocate socialism
nor do I advocate capitalism. Both have flaws when taken to the extreme.
El Castor
2017-11-12 21:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:22:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
I'll answer "who", rather than get into word games.
In my opinion, you are.
You're free to have any opinion you want of me.
Fascism, or Germany's National Socialism, means central government
control, but not ownership, of the economy, with a strong dose of
nationalism thrown in. Basically a model for European socialism, minus
the nationalism.
You are mistaken. Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian
nationalism characterized by dictatorial power and forcible suppression
of opposition and control of industry and commerce. It is about as far
from socialism as one can get, much closer to free market capitalism
with government protection against any interference with industry and
commerce. Both Trump and Putin exhibit traits of fascism, very similar
to Mussolini.
Let's take a step back. Did I not say that socialism lacked the
nationalism of fascism. Yes, I did. Both share strong central
government control and nationalization of elements of the economy. The
difference is socialism is a kinder gentler version of fascism? Kinder
and gentler can be in the eye of the beholder. The latest nation to
fall to socialism is Venezuela. Or is it fascism? Which?
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Ah, the comma! Getting back to my question --- Venezuela, socialist or
fascist?
CARACAS, Aug 1 (Reuters) - More than a dozen of 34 radio stations
ordered shut by the Venezuelan government went off the air on
Saturday, part of President Hugo Chavez’s drive to extend his
socialist revolution to the media.
http://www.reuters.com/article/venezuela-media/update-2-venezuela-begins-shutdown-of-34-radio-stations-idUSN0146551720090801
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — A radio executive in Venezuela says two
stations that included critical coverage of the government have been
shut down after their broadcast licenses were not renewed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-venezuela-shuts-2-radio-stations-orders-military-exercises-2017-8
"Venezuela Agents Arrest Opposition Leaders In Midnight Raids"
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540790886/venezuela-agents-arrest-opposition-leaders-in-midnight-raids
Venezuela is hardly a poster child for socialism. Nor is it fascist.
It is just another sad South American country with a lot of corruption
and incompetent leaders.
As I have reminded you many times before, I do not advocate socialism
nor do I advocate capitalism. Both have flaws when taken to the extreme.
So what DO you advocate. Let me guess -- kinder, gentler fascism, or
European socialism -- whatever you would prefer to call it. Tightly
controlled economy, taxed and regulated up the wazoo, punish the rich,
and reward the poor? That about it?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-12 01:37:22 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
islander
2017-11-12 14:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
Ah, but the difference is in the details.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-12 16:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
Ah, but the difference is in the details.
The differences don't seem as glaring to
me. You and El are debating right now about
whether Venezuela was and is "socialist".
Venezuela was and is Venezuela, and what it
is now is probably a lot different than what
it was under Chavez. Are we going to send
troops to try to overthrow Venezuela as we
tried, albeit with almost unimaginable
incompetence, to do against Castro's Cuba?

I don't think at all that it will come to that,
and I certainly hope I'm not wrong, but if
we had succeeded in overthrowing Cuba,
maybe we (meaning wealthy investors
and those they can bribe or force to play
ball) would have more blood-lust toward
overthrowing Venezuela now.
islander
2017-11-13 14:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
Ah, but the difference is in the details.
The differences don't seem as glaring to
me. You and El are debating right now about
whether Venezuela was and is "socialist".
Venezuela was and is Venezuela, and what it
is now is probably a lot different than what
it was under Chavez. Are we going to send
troops to try to overthrow Venezuela as we
tried, albeit with almost unimaginable
incompetence, to do against Castro's Cuba?
I don't think at all that it will come to that,
and I certainly hope I'm not wrong, but if
we had succeeded in overthrowing Cuba,
maybe we (meaning wealthy investors
and those they can bribe or force to play
ball) would have more blood-lust toward
overthrowing Venezuela now.
The Bay of Pigs fiasco was part of the Red Scare of the '50s. I suppose
Kennedy could have stopped it, but it was basically Ike's plan, put in
place before Kennedy. I went to Cuba in the summer of '57 when Batista
was still in power and thought that it was a pretty neat place, despite
the number of guns in evidence. Of course, Batista was a pretty brutal
dictator, but I didn't see any of that. When Castro took power, it
became part of the expansion of Soviet influence in this hemisphere and
the refugees in Florida were a powerful voice in advocating the
overthrow of Castro. I knew a man who was a pilot in Batista's air
force who defected to the US and who felt pretty strongly about what had
happened to his country, but not strongly enough to participate in the
invasion as many Cuban refugees did. Was it influenced by "wealthy
investors?" Perhaps, but I think that it had more to do with having a
(gasp) Communist regime just 90 miles from our coast. The intent of the
Soviets was borne out just a few years later in the Cuban missile crisis
which was handled well by Kennedy. Tit for tat, we gave up our missiles
in Turkey in exchange for the Soviets giving up their missiles in Cuba.
A step back from the brink!

Venezuela? Quite a different situation and not a threat to us except in
the minds of those who cannot seem to get enough oil. Jeff delights in
using Venezuela as an example of the failure of communism, but it seems
to me to be just another example of a corrupt and inept South American
government.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-13 16:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
Ah, but the difference is in the details.
The differences don't seem as glaring to
me. You and El are debating right now about
whether Venezuela was and is "socialist".
Venezuela was and is Venezuela, and what it
is now is probably a lot different than what
it was under Chavez. Are we going to send
troops to try to overthrow Venezuela as we
tried, albeit with almost unimaginable
incompetence, to do against Castro's Cuba?
I don't think at all that it will come to that,
and I certainly hope I'm not wrong, but if
we had succeeded in overthrowing Cuba,
maybe we (meaning wealthy investors
and those they can bribe or force to play
ball) would have more blood-lust toward
overthrowing Venezuela now.
The Bay of Pigs fiasco was part of the Red Scare of the '50s. I suppose
Kennedy could have stopped it, but it was basically Ike's plan, put in
place before Kennedy. I went to Cuba in the summer of '57 when Batista
was still in power and thought that it was a pretty neat place, despite
the number of guns in evidence. Of course, Batista was a pretty brutal
dictator, but I didn't see any of that. When Castro took power, it
became part of the expansion of Soviet influence in this hemisphere and
the refugees in Florida were a powerful voice in advocating the
overthrow of Castro. I knew a man who was a pilot in Batista's air
force who defected to the US and who felt pretty strongly about what had
happened to his country, but not strongly enough to participate in the
invasion as many Cuban refugees did. Was it influenced by "wealthy
investors?" Perhaps, but I think that it had more to do with having a
(gasp) Communist regime just 90 miles from our coast. The intent of the
Soviets was borne out just a few years later in the Cuban missile crisis
which was handled well by Kennedy. Tit for tat, we gave up our missiles
in Turkey in exchange for the Soviets giving up their missiles in Cuba.
A step back from the brink!
Cuba has been "communist" for quite a while now.
So far we haven't been invaded.

Yes, we gave up our missiles in Turkey in exchange
for getting rid of Russian missiles in Cuba. Why the
noise about Russian missiles in Cuba while we were
ourselves placing missiles in Turkey and elsewhere
obviously positioned against the USSR? Doesn't that
seem at least a teensy-weensy bit hypocritical to you?

At any rate, the missiles are gone from both Cuba
and Turkey now, as far as I know.
Post by islander
Venezuela? Quite a different situation and not a threat to us except in
the minds of those who cannot seem to get enough oil. Jeff delights in
using Venezuela as an example of the failure of communism, but it seems
to me to be just another example of a corrupt and inept South American
government.
islander
2017-11-14 15:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
At any rate, the missiles are gone from both Cuba
and Turkey now, as far as I know.
Any time we can achieve the goal of reducing the number of missiles it
is a good thing, IMV. Trump's blundering around in nuclear brinkmanship
is dangerous beyond comprehension.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-14 15:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
At any rate, the missiles are gone from both Cuba
and Turkey now, as far as I know.
Any time we can achieve the goal of reducing the number of missiles it
is a good thing, IMV. Trump's blundering around in nuclear brinkmanship
is dangerous beyond comprehension.
I'm wondering now about the possibility of war between Iran
and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has American ordnance,
which Iran doesn't, but I just heard somewhere this morning
(maybe on RT, maybe on PBS) that Saudi Arabia realizes it
can't win a war against Iran. How reliable that assessment
is, I couldn't say.
islander
2017-11-14 19:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
At any rate, the missiles are gone from both Cuba
and Turkey now, as far as I know.
Any time we can achieve the goal of reducing the number of missiles it
is a good thing, IMV. Trump's blundering around in nuclear brinkmanship
is dangerous beyond comprehension.
I'm wondering now about the possibility of war between Iran
and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has American ordnance,
which Iran doesn't, but I just heard somewhere this morning
(maybe on RT, maybe on PBS) that Saudi Arabia realizes it
can't win a war against Iran. How reliable that assessment
is, I couldn't say.
Iran has Russian ordinance. The Saudis have 32 million people and Iran
has 80 million. In addition to having a larger supply of cannon fodder,
there is the Persian Gulf that separates the two countries. Iran has a
much larger (7x) Navy which would make any invasion of Iran from Saudi
Arabia very difficult. So, yes, the assessment is probably pretty accurate.

Overall, a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran would be disastrous for the
region and maybe the world if the US and Russia cannot resist getting
involved.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-11-12 15:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-12 16:56:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
The USA certainly does plenty of that.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-11-12 16:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
The USA certainly does plenty of that.
How so?
Gary
2017-11-12 17:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
The USA certainly does plenty of that.
How so?
Rumple thinks that it is "forcible suppression" if the activity of a small group of
people is frowned upon, and looked down on by the majority of people. He would argue
that homosexuality was illegal when he was young. It had to be ! Everybody
considered it evil and disgusting. Men who admitted to enjoying that activity -- were
immediately ostracized.

But.... but ... disgusting or not -- it was legal.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-11-12 18:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
The USA certainly does plenty of that.
How so?
Rumple thinks that it is "forcible suppression" if the activity of a small group of
people is frowned upon, and looked down on by the majority of people. He would argue
that homosexuality was illegal when he was young. It had to be ! Everybody
considered it evil and disgusting. Men who admitted to enjoying that activity -- were
immediately ostracized.
But.... but ... disgusting or not -- it was legal.
It was illegal in many states. In 1986, SCOTUS upheld a Georgia law.
It wasn't until 2003 that SCOTUS reversed course and invalidated those laws.

But even so, that wouldn't be suppressing the opposition. What would be
is not permitting people to organize to change the law.
Gary
2017-11-12 18:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Gary
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
The USA certainly does plenty of that.
How so?
Rumple thinks that it is "forcible suppression" if the activity of a small group of
people is frowned upon, and looked down on by the majority of people. He would argue
that homosexuality was illegal when he was young. It had to be ! Everybody
considered it evil and disgusting. Men who admitted to enjoying that activity -- were
immediately ostracized.
But.... but ... disgusting or not -- it was legal.
It was illegal in many states. In 1986, SCOTUS upheld a Georgia law.
It wasn't until 2003 that SCOTUS reversed course and invalidated those laws.
But even so, that wouldn't be suppressing the opposition. What would be
is not permitting people to organize to change the law.
Thanks. I was wrong. Growing up, I only knew a few gays. And I do recall they
seemed to think the law was against them. Though I never saw any of them get into any
trouble.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-12 20:15:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 10:16:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Gary
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
The USA certainly does plenty of that.
How so?
Rumple thinks that it is "forcible suppression" if the activity of a small group of
people is frowned upon, and looked down on by the majority of people. He would argue
that homosexuality was illegal when he was young. It had to be ! Everybody
considered it evil and disgusting. Men who admitted to enjoying that activity -- were
immediately ostracized.
But.... but ... disgusting or not -- it was legal.
Gary and his ilk are the disgusting people. Of course,
they can't see that, and that's why they stay the way
they are.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
It was illegal in many states. In 1986, SCOTUS upheld a Georgia law.
It wasn't until 2003 that SCOTUS reversed course and invalidated those laws.
But even so, that wouldn't be suppressing the opposition. What would be
is not permitting people to organize to change the law.
Gary
2017-11-14 12:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 10:16:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Gary
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The USA certainly does plenty of that.
How so?
Rumple thinks that it is "forcible suppression" if the activity of a small group of
people is frowned upon, and looked down on by the majority of people. He would argue
that homosexuality was illegal when he was young. It had to be ! Everybody
considered it evil and disgusting. Men who admitted to enjoying that activity -- were
immediately ostracized.
But.... but ... disgusting or not -- it was legal.
Gary and his ilk are the disgusting people. Of course,
they can't see that, and that's why they stay the way
they are.
I've met a few people who are disgusted by good manners and high cultural breeding.
Those people usually have habits frowned on by civilized folks.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-12 20:15:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 08:58:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
The USA certainly does plenty of that.
How so?
Why no?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-12 21:32:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
I think publicly identifying oneself as a "communist"
in the USA is still an invitation to harassment, at least.
That certainly seemed to be the practice when I was
a kid. Everybody, especially school teachers, was
too intimidated to say one word out of the tacitly or
explicitly prescribed way.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-11-12 22:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
I think publicly identifying oneself as a "communist"
in the USA is still an invitation to harassment, at least.
That certainly seemed to be the practice when I was
a kid. Everybody, especially school teachers, was
too intimidated to say one word out of the tacitly or
explicitly prescribed way.
We did have Joe McCarthy, but I think we are past that now.
El Castor
2017-11-12 22:23:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:07:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
I think publicly identifying oneself as a "communist"
in the USA is still an invitation to harassment, at least.
That certainly seemed to be the practice when I was
a kid. Everybody, especially school teachers, was
too intimidated to say one word out of the tacitly or
explicitly prescribed way.
We did have Joe McCarthy, but I think we are past that now.
We do have Antifa -- which is perhaps a sample of what to expect from
a Millenial government. After all, Hitler had his Brown Shirts before
his SS. He had to start somewhere.

"Punching Free Speech
Anti-free speech radicals are doing violence to American values."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-08-28/antifa-are-doing-violence-to-american-free-speech-values

"UC Berkeley Sustains $100,000 Damage From Rioters"
https://patch.com/california/berkeley/berkeley-mayor-denounces-violent-protesters

"Europe polices hate speech; time for the U.S. to do so, too"
http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Europe-polices-hate-speech-time-for-the-U-S-to-11821713.php
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-13 00:51:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:07:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
I think publicly identifying oneself as a "communist"
in the USA is still an invitation to harassment, at least.
That certainly seemed to be the practice when I was
a kid. Everybody, especially school teachers, was
too intimidated to say one word out of the tacitly or
explicitly prescribed way.
We did have Joe McCarthy, but I think we are past that now.
Now that the Soviet Union is history, US
propaganda has changed to anti-Russian
stuff. It sounds the same to me. I'd guess
that's because the USSR and Russia have
been since WWII the only entity big enough
and technological enough to pose serious
competition to American World Dominance.
Now there's China too, but China isn't
completely on its feet yet as a world power.

"Let China sleep. When she awakens,
the world will be sorry." -- Napoleon
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-11-13 01:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:07:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
I think publicly identifying oneself as a "communist"
in the USA is still an invitation to harassment, at least.
That certainly seemed to be the practice when I was
a kid. Everybody, especially school teachers, was
too intimidated to say one word out of the tacitly or
explicitly prescribed way.
We did have Joe McCarthy, but I think we are past that now.
Now that the Soviet Union is history, US
propaganda has changed to anti-Russian
stuff. It sounds the same to me.
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
Post by El Castor
I'd guess
that's because the USSR and Russia have
been since WWII the only entity big enough
and technological enough to pose serious
competition to American World Dominance.
Now there's China too, but China isn't
completely on its feet yet as a world power.
"Let China sleep. When she awakens,
the world will be sorry." -- Napoleon
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-13 03:38:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 17:09:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:07:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
I think publicly identifying oneself as a "communist"
in the USA is still an invitation to harassment, at least.
That certainly seemed to be the practice when I was
a kid. Everybody, especially school teachers, was
too intimidated to say one word out of the tacitly or
explicitly prescribed way.
We did have Joe McCarthy, but I think we are past that now.
Now that the Soviet Union is history, US
propaganda has changed to anti-Russian
stuff. It sounds the same to me.
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
I'd guess
that's because the USSR and Russia have
been since WWII the only entity big enough
and technological enough to pose serious
competition to American World Dominance.
Now there's China too, but China isn't
completely on its feet yet as a world power.
"Let China sleep. When she awakens,
the world will be sorry." -- Napoleon
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-11-13 04:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 17:09:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:07:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:30:41 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition" refers to
silencing opposing political viewpoints.
I think publicly identifying oneself as a "communist"
in the USA is still an invitation to harassment, at least.
That certainly seemed to be the practice when I was
a kid. Everybody, especially school teachers, was
too intimidated to say one word out of the tacitly or
explicitly prescribed way.
We did have Joe McCarthy, but I think we are past that now.
Now that the Soviet Union is history, US
propaganda has changed to anti-Russian
stuff. It sounds the same to me.
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-13 06:19:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.

So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
El Castor
2017-11-13 07:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
Listen to Josh, you might learn something.

As for RT -- it is owned and operated by the Russian government. I
have poked around the Internet and can find no evidence of attempts to
shut it down. However, it has been required to register as an agent of
a foreign government, and there is or was a rider in a bill before
congress which would exempt cable TV networks from any regulatory
requirement that they carry RT. Seems reasonable. Why should the US
government require Time Warner or Comcast to carry a propaganda outlet
of a foreign government?

BTW, the UK is a different story. The Brits have been aggressive in
shutting down RT and closing their bank accounts.

Before you reply with your typical wishful thinking, please supply us
with facts. Failure of a US carrier to offer RT is not proof they were
told to stop carrying it by the government. Show us the proof.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-13 11:31:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:14:17 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
Listen to Josh, you might learn something.
As for RT -- it is owned and operated by the Russian government. I
have poked around the Internet and can find no evidence of attempts to
shut it down. However, it has been required to register as an agent of
a foreign government, and there is or was a rider in a bill before
congress which would exempt cable TV networks from any regulatory
requirement that they carry RT.
Seems reasonable. Why should the US
government require Time Warner or Comcast to carry a propaganda outlet
of a foreign government?
Thanks for the example of what "begging the question"
REALLY means.
Post by El Castor
BTW, the UK is a different story. The Brits have been aggressive in
shutting down RT and closing their bank accounts.
I'm sorry to hear that, if true.
Post by El Castor
Before you reply with your typical wishful thinking, please supply us
with facts.
Failure of a US carrier to offer RT is not proof they were
told to stop carrying it by the government.
I'm not familiar with the incident you're talking about:
maybe it was in part of the thread I didn't read. I have
no problem with your statement above though.
Post by El Castor
Show us the proof.
Huh? Proof of what? Something I didn't assert?
El Castor
2017-11-13 20:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:14:17 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
Listen to Josh, you might learn something.
As for RT -- it is owned and operated by the Russian government. I
have poked around the Internet and can find no evidence of attempts to
shut it down. However, it has been required to register as an agent of
a foreign government, and there is or was a rider in a bill before
congress which would exempt cable TV networks from any regulatory
requirement that they carry RT.
Seems reasonable. Why should the US
government require Time Warner or Comcast to carry a propaganda outlet
of a foreign government?
Thanks for the example of what "begging the question"
REALLY means.
Post by El Castor
BTW, the UK is a different story. The Brits have been aggressive in
shutting down RT and closing their bank accounts.
I'm sorry to hear that, if true.
Post by El Castor
Before you reply with your typical wishful thinking, please supply us
with facts.
Failure of a US carrier to offer RT is not proof they were
told to stop carrying it by the government.
maybe it was in part of the thread I didn't read. I have
no problem with your statement above though.
Post by El Castor
Show us the proof.
Huh? Proof of what? Something I didn't assert?
Proof of what? Proof of something you DID ASSERT, as in ...

"Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people."
... Your post, Rumple, your words, of 12 Nov, 12:42

Please offer examples and proof of "apparent attempts by the gummt to
shut down RT".
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-13 22:48:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:23:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:14:17 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
Listen to Josh, you might learn something.
As for RT -- it is owned and operated by the Russian government. I
have poked around the Internet and can find no evidence of attempts to
shut it down. However, it has been required to register as an agent of
a foreign government, and there is or was a rider in a bill before
congress which would exempt cable TV networks from any regulatory
requirement that they carry RT.
Seems reasonable. Why should the US
government require Time Warner or Comcast to carry a propaganda outlet
of a foreign government?
Thanks for the example of what "begging the question"
REALLY means.
Post by El Castor
BTW, the UK is a different story. The Brits have been aggressive in
shutting down RT and closing their bank accounts.
I'm sorry to hear that, if true.
Post by El Castor
Before you reply with your typical wishful thinking, please supply us
with facts.
Failure of a US carrier to offer RT is not proof they were
told to stop carrying it by the government.
maybe it was in part of the thread I didn't read. I have
no problem with your statement above though.
Post by El Castor
Show us the proof.
Huh? Proof of what? Something I didn't assert?
Proof of what? Proof of something you DID ASSERT, as in ...
"Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people."
... Your post, Rumple, your words, of 12 Nov, 12:42
Please offer examples and proof of "apparent attempts by the gummt to
shut down RT".
https://sputniknews.com/us/201709201057554412-us-silence-sputnik-rt-backlash/
El Castor
2017-11-14 04:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:23:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:14:17 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
Listen to Josh, you might learn something.
As for RT -- it is owned and operated by the Russian government. I
have poked around the Internet and can find no evidence of attempts to
shut it down. However, it has been required to register as an agent of
a foreign government, and there is or was a rider in a bill before
congress which would exempt cable TV networks from any regulatory
requirement that they carry RT.
Seems reasonable. Why should the US
government require Time Warner or Comcast to carry a propaganda outlet
of a foreign government?
Thanks for the example of what "begging the question"
REALLY means.
Post by El Castor
BTW, the UK is a different story. The Brits have been aggressive in
shutting down RT and closing their bank accounts.
I'm sorry to hear that, if true.
Post by El Castor
Before you reply with your typical wishful thinking, please supply us
with facts.
Failure of a US carrier to offer RT is not proof they were
told to stop carrying it by the government.
maybe it was in part of the thread I didn't read. I have
no problem with your statement above though.
Post by El Castor
Show us the proof.
Huh? Proof of what? Something I didn't assert?
Proof of what? Proof of something you DID ASSERT, as in ...
"Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people."
... Your post, Rumple, your words, of 12 Nov, 12:42
Please offer examples and proof of "apparent attempts by the gummt to
shut down RT".
https://sputniknews.com/us/201709201057554412-us-silence-sputnik-rt-backlash/
Hmmm, so US government complaints (mainly Hillary and DNC complaints,
but whatever) that Russia interfered with the US election are really
an attempt to shut down RT? All I can say is, LOL. Sorry, but your
ridiculous gullibility does not constitute proof -- of anything.

Once again, please offer examples and proof of "apparent attempts by
the gummt to shut down RT".

Better yet, go home to Liverpool, or wherever it is you are from.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-10 08:10:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:53:21 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:23:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:14:17 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
Listen to Josh, you might learn something.
As for RT -- it is owned and operated by the Russian government. I
have poked around the Internet and can find no evidence of attempts to
shut it down. However, it has been required to register as an agent of
a foreign government, and there is or was a rider in a bill before
congress which would exempt cable TV networks from any regulatory
requirement that they carry RT.
Seems reasonable. Why should the US
government require Time Warner or Comcast to carry a propaganda outlet
of a foreign government?
Thanks for the example of what "begging the question"
REALLY means.
Post by El Castor
BTW, the UK is a different story. The Brits have been aggressive in
shutting down RT and closing their bank accounts.
I'm sorry to hear that, if true.
Post by El Castor
Before you reply with your typical wishful thinking, please supply us
with facts.
Failure of a US carrier to offer RT is not proof they were
told to stop carrying it by the government.
maybe it was in part of the thread I didn't read. I have
no problem with your statement above though.
Post by El Castor
Show us the proof.
Huh? Proof of what? Something I didn't assert?
Proof of what? Proof of something you DID ASSERT, as in ...
"Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people."
... Your post, Rumple, your words, of 12 Nov, 12:42
Please offer examples and proof of "apparent attempts by the gummt to
shut down RT".
https://sputniknews.com/us/201709201057554412-us-silence-sputnik-rt-backlash/
Hmmm, so US government complaints (mainly Hillary and DNC complaints,
but whatever) that Russia interfered with the US election are really
an attempt to shut down RT? All I can say is, LOL. Sorry, but your
ridiculous gullibility does not constitute proof -- of anything.
Just noticed this post, unless I saw it and before and decided
not to answer it.

I haven't been following the allegations about RT supposedly
successfully interfering with American politics to an effective
degree, of which there is still no proof offered, but even if
Russia has successfully interfered at all, and again no proof
has emerged, there's no way it could compete with the US
interfering, in El Salvador, Israel/Palestine Iraq, for example,
and that's only a tiny sample.
Post by El Castor
Once again, please offer examples and proof of "apparent attempts by
the gummt to shut down RT".
Better yet, go home to Liverpool, or wherever it is you are from.
I made a nasty comment that included 1945, but I erased
most of it and I'll just leave that date in. You deserve
something in reply to Liverpool. I'm not an American
citizen, but IMO I'm a far better "American" than you are.
El Castor
2018-01-10 09:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:53:21 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:23:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:14:17 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
Listen to Josh, you might learn something.
As for RT -- it is owned and operated by the Russian government. I
have poked around the Internet and can find no evidence of attempts to
shut it down. However, it has been required to register as an agent of
a foreign government, and there is or was a rider in a bill before
congress which would exempt cable TV networks from any regulatory
requirement that they carry RT.
Seems reasonable. Why should the US
government require Time Warner or Comcast to carry a propaganda outlet
of a foreign government?
Thanks for the example of what "begging the question"
REALLY means.
Post by El Castor
BTW, the UK is a different story. The Brits have been aggressive in
shutting down RT and closing their bank accounts.
I'm sorry to hear that, if true.
Post by El Castor
Before you reply with your typical wishful thinking, please supply us
with facts.
Failure of a US carrier to offer RT is not proof they were
told to stop carrying it by the government.
maybe it was in part of the thread I didn't read. I have
no problem with your statement above though.
Post by El Castor
Show us the proof.
Huh? Proof of what? Something I didn't assert?
Proof of what? Proof of something you DID ASSERT, as in ...
"Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people."
... Your post, Rumple, your words, of 12 Nov, 12:42
Please offer examples and proof of "apparent attempts by the gummt to
shut down RT".
https://sputniknews.com/us/201709201057554412-us-silence-sputnik-rt-backlash/
Hmmm, so US government complaints (mainly Hillary and DNC complaints,
but whatever) that Russia interfered with the US election are really
an attempt to shut down RT? All I can say is, LOL. Sorry, but your
ridiculous gullibility does not constitute proof -- of anything.
Just noticed this post, unless I saw it and before and decided
not to answer it.
I haven't been following the allegations about RT supposedly
successfully interfering with American politics to an effective
degree, of which there is still no proof offered, but even if
Russia has successfully interfered at all, and again no proof
has emerged, there's no way it could compete with the US
interfering, in El Salvador, Israel/Palestine Iraq, for example,
and that's only a tiny sample.
Proof is not necessary. RT is an instrument of the Russian government,
so of course they would like to interfere, if it is in their interests
to do so.

If you want proof, here it is from an RT anchor resigning on the air.

rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-10 15:38:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:51:24 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:53:21 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:23:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:14:17 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
Listen to Josh, you might learn something.
As for RT -- it is owned and operated by the Russian government. I
have poked around the Internet and can find no evidence of attempts to
shut it down. However, it has been required to register as an agent of
a foreign government, and there is or was a rider in a bill before
congress which would exempt cable TV networks from any regulatory
requirement that they carry RT.
Seems reasonable. Why should the US
government require Time Warner or Comcast to carry a propaganda outlet
of a foreign government?
Thanks for the example of what "begging the question"
REALLY means.
Post by El Castor
BTW, the UK is a different story. The Brits have been aggressive in
shutting down RT and closing their bank accounts.
I'm sorry to hear that, if true.
Post by El Castor
Before you reply with your typical wishful thinking, please supply us
with facts.
Failure of a US carrier to offer RT is not proof they were
told to stop carrying it by the government.
maybe it was in part of the thread I didn't read. I have
no problem with your statement above though.
Post by El Castor
Show us the proof.
Huh? Proof of what? Something I didn't assert?
Proof of what? Proof of something you DID ASSERT, as in ...
"Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people."
... Your post, Rumple, your words, of 12 Nov, 12:42
Please offer examples and proof of "apparent attempts by the gummt to
shut down RT".
https://sputniknews.com/us/201709201057554412-us-silence-sputnik-rt-backlash/
Hmmm, so US government complaints (mainly Hillary and DNC complaints,
but whatever) that Russia interfered with the US election are really
an attempt to shut down RT? All I can say is, LOL. Sorry, but your
ridiculous gullibility does not constitute proof -- of anything.
Just noticed this post, unless I saw it and before and decided
not to answer it.
I haven't been following the allegations about RT supposedly
successfully interfering with American politics to an effective
degree, of which there is still no proof offered, but even if
Russia has successfully interfered at all, and again no proof
has emerged, there's no way it could compete with the US
interfering, in El Salvador, Israel/Palestine Iraq, for example,
and that's only a tiny sample.
Proof is not necessary. RT is an instrument of the Russian government,
RT being supported by the Russian government is only
an issue if it always lies and the USA always tells the truth,
but that's certainly not the case. At least one person who
told the truth in the USA has had to seek refuge in Russia.
Post by El Castor
so of course they would like to interfere, if it is in their interests
to do so.
If you want proof, here it is from an RT anchor resigning on the air.
http://youtu.be/2h79v9uirLY
Malcontents are never hard to find: you and me and
Robert E. Lee for example. If that's your idea of "proof",
it's worth absolutely nothing.
El Castor
2018-01-10 20:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:51:24 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:53:21 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:23:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:14:17 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
Listen to Josh, you might learn something.
As for RT -- it is owned and operated by the Russian government. I
have poked around the Internet and can find no evidence of attempts to
shut it down. However, it has been required to register as an agent of
a foreign government, and there is or was a rider in a bill before
congress which would exempt cable TV networks from any regulatory
requirement that they carry RT.
Seems reasonable. Why should the US
government require Time Warner or Comcast to carry a propaganda outlet
of a foreign government?
Thanks for the example of what "begging the question"
REALLY means.
Post by El Castor
BTW, the UK is a different story. The Brits have been aggressive in
shutting down RT and closing their bank accounts.
I'm sorry to hear that, if true.
Post by El Castor
Before you reply with your typical wishful thinking, please supply us
with facts.
Failure of a US carrier to offer RT is not proof they were
told to stop carrying it by the government.
maybe it was in part of the thread I didn't read. I have
no problem with your statement above though.
Post by El Castor
Show us the proof.
Huh? Proof of what? Something I didn't assert?
Proof of what? Proof of something you DID ASSERT, as in ...
"Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people."
... Your post, Rumple, your words, of 12 Nov, 12:42
Please offer examples and proof of "apparent attempts by the gummt to
shut down RT".
https://sputniknews.com/us/201709201057554412-us-silence-sputnik-rt-backlash/
Hmmm, so US government complaints (mainly Hillary and DNC complaints,
but whatever) that Russia interfered with the US election are really
an attempt to shut down RT? All I can say is, LOL. Sorry, but your
ridiculous gullibility does not constitute proof -- of anything.
Just noticed this post, unless I saw it and before and decided
not to answer it.
I haven't been following the allegations about RT supposedly
successfully interfering with American politics to an effective
degree, of which there is still no proof offered, but even if
Russia has successfully interfered at all, and again no proof
has emerged, there's no way it could compete with the US
interfering, in El Salvador, Israel/Palestine Iraq, for example,
and that's only a tiny sample.
Proof is not necessary. RT is an instrument of the Russian government,
RT being supported by the Russian government is only
an issue if it always lies and the USA always tells the truth,
but that's certainly not the case. At least one person who
told the truth in the USA has had to seek refuge in Russia.
Post by El Castor
so of course they would like to interfere, if it is in their interests
to do so.
If you want proof, here it is from an RT anchor resigning on the air.
http://youtu.be/2h79v9uirLY
Malcontents are never hard to find: you and me and
Robert E. Lee for example. If that's your idea of "proof",
it's worth absolutely nothing.
RT (Russia Today) is owned and funded by the Russian government. It is
the Russian version of the Voice of America. What more do you need to
know? However, here is more ...

Wikipedia ... (Numbers refer to footnote documentation)
"RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the
Russian government[13][14][15] and its foreign
policy.[13][15][16][17][18][19] RT has also been accused of spreading
disinformation[19][20][21] by news reporters,[22][23] including some
former RT reporters.[24][25][26] The United Kingdom media regulator,
Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached rules on impartiality
and of broadcasting "materially misleading" content.[27][28][29][30]
On 13 November 2017, RT America officially registered as a "foreign
agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act. Under the act, RT will be required to
disclose financial information."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

Time Magazine ...
"The global news network RT is the Russian government's main weapon in
an intensifying information war with the West—and its top editor has a
direct phone line to the Kremlin'
http://time.com/rt-putin/

Columbia Journalism Review ...
"Russia Today was conceived as a soft-power tool to improve Russia’s
image abroad, to counter the anti-Russian bias the Kremlin saw in the
Western media. Since its founding in 2005, however, the broadcast
outlet has become better known as an extension of former President
Vladimir Putin’s confrontational foreign policy."
http://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php

Huffington Post ...
"Want To See Fake News? Check Out 'Russia Today'" ...
"Although various categories of propaganda have been in use since
ancient Persia, the use of disinformation campaigns to influence the
citizens other than one's own is rather new, emerging post 9/11 in the
era of media fluidity and the globalization of information exchange.
Perhaps the most successful example of such propaganda is "Russia
Today," known simply as "RT" -- an international television network
created and funded by the Russian government.
What most people do not know is that it was co-founded by Vladimir
Putin's then-press attaché Aleksei Gromov (now his Deputy Chief of
Staff) and former media minister Mikhail Lesin (nicknamed the
Bulldozer for his ability to get Russian media outlets under
centralized control), and that its news agenda is controlled, directed
and censored by the Kremlin."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tara-katrusiak-baran/fighting-fake-news-russia-today_b_14408674.html
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-11 01:07:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:55:01 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Huffington Post ...
"Want To See Fake News? Check Out 'Russia Today'" ...
"Although various categories of propaganda have been in use since
ancient Persia, the use of disinformation campaigns to influence the
citizens other than one's own is rather new, emerging post 9/11 in the
era of media fluidity and the globalization of information exchange.
Perhaps the most successful example of such propaganda is "Russia
Today," known simply as "RT" -- an international television network
created and funded by the Russian government.
What most people do not know is that it was co-founded by Vladimir
Putin's then-press attaché Aleksei Gromov (now his Deputy Chief of
Staff) and former media minister Mikhail Lesin (nicknamed the
Bulldozer for his ability to get Russian media outlets under
centralized control), and that its news agenda is controlled, directed
and censored by the Kremlin."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tara-katrusiak-baran/fighting-fake-news-russia-today_b_14408674.html
Want to see fake news? Try Donald Trump. Your diligence
at digging up all this stuff is admirable, or something ...
probably something. I didn't even really scan it, but maybe
Globalist or Werner would be more interested. To me looks
like the usual crap. Did you know that the New York Times
was founded by Jack the Ripper? It's true, although the
details are classified, but as a good American you're obliged
to believe it.
El Castor
2018-01-11 02:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:55:01 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Huffington Post ...
"Want To See Fake News? Check Out 'Russia Today'" ...
"Although various categories of propaganda have been in use since
ancient Persia, the use of disinformation campaigns to influence the
citizens other than one's own is rather new, emerging post 9/11 in the
era of media fluidity and the globalization of information exchange.
Perhaps the most successful example of such propaganda is "Russia
Today," known simply as "RT" -- an international television network
created and funded by the Russian government.
What most people do not know is that it was co-founded by Vladimir
Putin's then-press attaché Aleksei Gromov (now his Deputy Chief of
Staff) and former media minister Mikhail Lesin (nicknamed the
Bulldozer for his ability to get Russian media outlets under
centralized control), and that its news agenda is controlled, directed
and censored by the Kremlin."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tara-katrusiak-baran/fighting-fake-news-russia-today_b_14408674.html
Want to see fake news? Try Donald Trump. Your diligence
at digging up all this stuff is admirable, or something ...
probably something. I didn't even really scan it, but maybe
Globalist or Werner would be more interested. To me looks
like the usual crap. Did you know that the New York Times
was founded by Jack the Ripper? It's true, although the
details are classified, but as a good American you're obliged
to believe it.
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-11 07:59:36 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:55:01 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Huffington Post ...
"Want To See Fake News? Check Out 'Russia Today'" ...
"Although various categories of propaganda have been in use since
ancient Persia, the use of disinformation campaigns to influence the
citizens other than one's own is rather new, emerging post 9/11 in the
era of media fluidity and the globalization of information exchange.
Perhaps the most successful example of such propaganda is "Russia
Today," known simply as "RT" -- an international television network
created and funded by the Russian government.
What most people do not know is that it was co-founded by Vladimir
Putin's then-press attaché Aleksei Gromov (now his Deputy Chief of
Staff) and former media minister Mikhail Lesin (nicknamed the
Bulldozer for his ability to get Russian media outlets under
centralized control), and that its news agenda is controlled, directed
and censored by the Kremlin."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tara-katrusiak-baran/fighting-fake-news-russia-today_b_14408674.html
Want to see fake news? Try Donald Trump. Your diligence
at digging up all this stuff is admirable, or something ...
probably something. I didn't even really scan it, but maybe
Globalist or Werner would be more interested. To me looks
like the usual crap. Did you know that the New York Times
was founded by Jack the Ripper? It's true, although the
details are classified, but as a good American you're obliged
to believe it.
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
El Castor
2018-01-11 08:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:55:01 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Huffington Post ...
"Want To See Fake News? Check Out 'Russia Today'" ...
"Although various categories of propaganda have been in use since
ancient Persia, the use of disinformation campaigns to influence the
citizens other than one's own is rather new, emerging post 9/11 in the
era of media fluidity and the globalization of information exchange.
Perhaps the most successful example of such propaganda is "Russia
Today," known simply as "RT" -- an international television network
created and funded by the Russian government.
What most people do not know is that it was co-founded by Vladimir
Putin's then-press attaché Aleksei Gromov (now his Deputy Chief of
Staff) and former media minister Mikhail Lesin (nicknamed the
Bulldozer for his ability to get Russian media outlets under
centralized control), and that its news agenda is controlled, directed
and censored by the Kremlin."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tara-katrusiak-baran/fighting-fake-news-russia-today_b_14408674.html
Want to see fake news? Try Donald Trump. Your diligence
at digging up all this stuff is admirable, or something ...
probably something. I didn't even really scan it, but maybe
Globalist or Werner would be more interested. To me looks
like the usual crap. Did you know that the New York Times
was founded by Jack the Ripper? It's true, although the
details are classified, but as a good American you're obliged
to believe it.
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-11 09:02:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.

Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
islander
2018-01-11 15:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.

So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-11 16:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The Olympics are not big in my mind. I never watch them or
keep track of them.

North Korea wants to take over South Korea, so it's not
surprising that North Korea is trying to drive a wedge between
South Korea and North Korea.

I'm completely opposed to things like the TPP and Nafta
that only benefit the already-rich, of course. Firecrackers
go off in my mind whenever I hear "good for the economy",
because I know that the real, not the propagandized,
effect of "good for the economy" is almost all "good for
the already wealthy".
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-11 17:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The Olympics are not big in my mind. I never watch them or
keep track of them.
North Korea wants to take over South Korea, so it's not
surprising that North Korea is trying to drive a wedge between
South Korea and North Korea.
That should have been "between South Korea and the USA".
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I'm completely opposed to things like the TPP and Nafta
that only benefit the already-rich, of course. Firecrackers
go off in my mind whenever I hear "good for the economy",
because I know that the real, not the propagandized,
effect of "good for the economy" is almost all "good for
the already wealthy".
El Castor
2018-01-11 18:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The Olympics are not big in my mind. I never watch them or
keep track of them.
North Korea wants to take over South Korea, so it's not
surprising that North Korea is trying to drive a wedge between
South Korea and North Korea.
I'm completely opposed to things like the TPP and Nafta
that only benefit the already-rich, of course. Firecrackers
go off in my mind whenever I hear "good for the economy",
because I know that the real, not the propagandized,
effect of "good for the economy" is almost all "good for
the already wealthy".
I keep bringing this up, but my father was born in 1906 in a sod house
on the Montana prairie -- on land homesteaded by his parents. No
indoor plumbing -- just an out house, and it gets pretty cold in
Montana during the winter. You take a toilet, shower, electricity, and
a stroll down Union Street on a sunny afternoon, smart phone in hand,
for granted. You're about to have heart surgery. Do you think they had
heart surgery in 1906? Drugs of any sort. Penicillin? Maybe leaches.
Today, the Internet, computers, TV, jet planes to fly us to New York,
Paris, or Hawaii? That economy you hate so much, and the evil rich
that you despise, have given you all those things. Ooh, and that
foreign trade! If you own a car, where was it made? Look at the label
on the shirt on your back, for God's sake! It sure as Hell wasn't made
in San Francisco.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-11 22:58:31 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:32:35 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The Olympics are not big in my mind. I never watch them or
keep track of them.
North Korea wants to take over South Korea, so it's not
surprising that North Korea is trying to drive a wedge between
South Korea and North Korea.
I'm completely opposed to things like the TPP and Nafta
that only benefit the already-rich, of course. Firecrackers
go off in my mind whenever I hear "good for the economy",
because I know that the real, not the propagandized,
effect of "good for the economy" is almost all "good for
the already wealthy".
I keep bringing this up, but my father was born in 1906 in a sod house
on the Montana prairie -- on land homesteaded by his parents. No
indoor plumbing -- just an out house, and it gets pretty cold in
Montana during the winter. You take a toilet, shower, electricity, and
a stroll down Union Street on a sunny afternoon, smart phone in hand,
for granted. You're about to have heart surgery. Do you think they had
heart surgery in 1906? Drugs of any sort. Penicillin? Maybe leaches.
Today, the Internet, computers, TV, jet planes to fly us to New York,
Paris, or Hawaii? That economy you hate so much, and the evil rich
that you despise, have given you all those things. Ooh, and that
foreign trade! If you own a car, where was it made? Look at the label
on the shirt on your back, for God's sake! It sure as Hell wasn't made
in San Francisco.
I'm sure that without modern medicine, I'd be dead by now,
and I might have been dead at 28 when I compound-
fractured my right arm. I avoid buying shirts with tags these
days. I only have a land line, but as soon as the current
ordeal is over, assuming I survive it, I'm going to dump the
land line and get a cell phone, not because I want to carry
a phone around with me which I don't intend to do unless
I'm travelling, but because it's cheaper. As to toilets, we
had the luxury of an indoor toilet in my town when I was
born, but the houses on Whinney Hill a short walk away
had outhouses, and if you walked up Whinney Hill along
the back instead of along the street, it stank.

You seem to be saying that the reason we live better
these days is because we coddle the rich. You're a
fool, IMO, if you believe that. As a post here lately
quoted Robert Reich (whom I trust more than all the
Republicans in the world added together), it's a myth
(I myself would have said "it's propaganda") that the
rich create wealth. Wealth is created by the Middle
Class buying things. The "evil rich" don't give: they
take. My car, such as it is, is American though I didn't
buy it. It was my mom's old car and I've put less than
a thousand miles a year on it. If only rich people
bought computers, computers would never have
evolved. Unlike yourself, I'm not a sycophant for the
rich.

I found the same text from Robert Reich, although
in a different format than as it was originally posted
here (by Wolfbat, I'm pretty sure): "The three biggest
Myths Blinding us to the Economic Truth":
http://robertreich.org/post/113280648985
There's far more wisdom in those three points than
there is in the entire Republican Party, IMV.

Just for my own nostalgia, here's Whinney Hill
as it looks today. Its official name is "Oldgate Lane".
The houses fronting the Lane look the same, but
there weren't any houses behind them when I
was a little kid. There was no "Wood Street" or
"School Street" which there are now in the picture,
unless my memory is failing me. Houses must
have been knocked down to create access to the
new houses, even though the bricks of the wall
along Wood Street look as old as the others. The
outhouses, of course, must be gone now.
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@53.446017,-1.302889,46.11h,-9.14p,1z
Oldgate Lane is steeper further down, It was
nicknamed "Whinney Hill", from the days before
cars, when horses had to pull loads up the hill.
Very few people had cars when I was a kid.

Thrybergh is in the Domesday Book, so it's
existed at least as far back as 1066, though the
closest thing to that age now is Conisborough
Castle, four miles down the Doncaster Road:
Athelstane's castle in Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe"
https://tinyurl.com/y7mnpzdr
islander
2018-01-11 23:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I found the same text from Robert Reich, although
in a different format than as it was originally posted
here (by Wolfbat, I'm pretty sure): "The three biggest
http://robertreich.org/post/113280648985
There's far more wisdom in those three points than
there is in the entire Republican Party, IMV.
There is another Reich at Berkeley, a Michael Reich who is a professor
of economics. I doubt that they are related, at least not closely.
Michael Reich is also quite liberal and has come to my attention
recently because of his advocacy for increasing the minimum wage.
El Castor
2018-01-12 04:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:32:35 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The Olympics are not big in my mind. I never watch them or
keep track of them.
North Korea wants to take over South Korea, so it's not
surprising that North Korea is trying to drive a wedge between
South Korea and North Korea.
I'm completely opposed to things like the TPP and Nafta
that only benefit the already-rich, of course. Firecrackers
go off in my mind whenever I hear "good for the economy",
because I know that the real, not the propagandized,
effect of "good for the economy" is almost all "good for
the already wealthy".
I keep bringing this up, but my father was born in 1906 in a sod house
on the Montana prairie -- on land homesteaded by his parents. No
indoor plumbing -- just an out house, and it gets pretty cold in
Montana during the winter. You take a toilet, shower, electricity, and
a stroll down Union Street on a sunny afternoon, smart phone in hand,
for granted. You're about to have heart surgery. Do you think they had
heart surgery in 1906? Drugs of any sort. Penicillin? Maybe leaches.
Today, the Internet, computers, TV, jet planes to fly us to New York,
Paris, or Hawaii? That economy you hate so much, and the evil rich
that you despise, have given you all those things. Ooh, and that
foreign trade! If you own a car, where was it made? Look at the label
on the shirt on your back, for God's sake! It sure as Hell wasn't made
in San Francisco.
I'm sure that without modern medicine, I'd be dead by now,
and I might have been dead at 28 when I compound-
fractured my right arm. I avoid buying shirts with tags these
days. I only have a land line, but as soon as the current
ordeal is over, assuming I survive it, I'm going to dump the
land line and get a cell phone, not because I want to carry
a phone around with me which I don't intend to do unless
I'm travelling, but because it's cheaper. As to toilets, we
had the luxury of an indoor toilet in my town when I was
born, but the houses on Whinney Hill a short walk away
had outhouses, and if you walked up Whinney Hill along
the back instead of along the street, it stank.
You seem to be saying that the reason we live better
these days is because we coddle the rich. You're a
fool, IMO, if you believe that. As a post here lately
quoted Robert Reich (whom I trust more than all the
Republicans in the world added together), it's a myth
(I myself would have said "it's propaganda") that the
rich create wealth. Wealth is created by the Middle
Class buying things. The "evil rich" don't give: they
take. My car, such as it is, is American though I didn't
buy it. It was my mom's old car and I've put less than
a thousand miles a year on it. If only rich people
bought computers, computers would never have
evolved. Unlike yourself, I'm not a sycophant for the
rich.
I found the same text from Robert Reich, although
in a different format than as it was originally posted
here (by Wolfbat, I'm pretty sure): "The three biggest
http://robertreich.org/post/113280648985
There's far more wisdom in those three points than
there is in the entire Republican Party, IMV.
Just for my own nostalgia, here's Whinney Hill
as it looks today. Its official name is "Oldgate Lane".
The houses fronting the Lane look the same, but
there weren't any houses behind them when I
was a little kid. There was no "Wood Street" or
"School Street" which there are now in the picture,
unless my memory is failing me. Houses must
have been knocked down to create access to the
new houses, even though the bricks of the wall
along Wood Street look as old as the others. The
outhouses, of course, must be gone now.
Oldgate Lane is steeper further down, It was
nicknamed "Whinney Hill", from the days before
cars, when horses had to pull loads up the hill.
Very few people had cars when I was a kid.
Thrybergh is in the Domesday Book, so it's
existed at least as far back as 1066, though the
closest thing to that age now is Conisborough
Athelstane's castle in Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe"
https://tinyurl.com/y7mnpzdr
I'm not saying we live well because we "coddle" the rich, we live well
because our society and free enterprise system rewards those who
invent, discover, and distribute electricity, the automobile,
computers, television, the phone, radio, etc. -- men like Edison,
Tesla, Ford, Gates, and Jobs, to name a few. It's easy to take all
these things for granted, but today, in many respects we live better
than a 19th century king. I developed cataracts in both eyes in my
40's. Today I would be half blind if it weren't for an English doctor,
Harold Ridley, who invented intraocular lens implant surgery in 1950.
If he got rich doing it, more power to him. Thanks to Dr. Ridley I'm
20/20. (-8
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-12 04:28:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 20:12:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:32:35 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The Olympics are not big in my mind. I never watch them or
keep track of them.
North Korea wants to take over South Korea, so it's not
surprising that North Korea is trying to drive a wedge between
South Korea and North Korea.
I'm completely opposed to things like the TPP and Nafta
that only benefit the already-rich, of course. Firecrackers
go off in my mind whenever I hear "good for the economy",
because I know that the real, not the propagandized,
effect of "good for the economy" is almost all "good for
the already wealthy".
I keep bringing this up, but my father was born in 1906 in a sod house
on the Montana prairie -- on land homesteaded by his parents. No
indoor plumbing -- just an out house, and it gets pretty cold in
Montana during the winter. You take a toilet, shower, electricity, and
a stroll down Union Street on a sunny afternoon, smart phone in hand,
for granted. You're about to have heart surgery. Do you think they had
heart surgery in 1906? Drugs of any sort. Penicillin? Maybe leaches.
Today, the Internet, computers, TV, jet planes to fly us to New York,
Paris, or Hawaii? That economy you hate so much, and the evil rich
that you despise, have given you all those things. Ooh, and that
foreign trade! If you own a car, where was it made? Look at the label
on the shirt on your back, for God's sake! It sure as Hell wasn't made
in San Francisco.
I'm sure that without modern medicine, I'd be dead by now,
and I might have been dead at 28 when I compound-
fractured my right arm. I avoid buying shirts with tags these
days. I only have a land line, but as soon as the current
ordeal is over, assuming I survive it, I'm going to dump the
land line and get a cell phone, not because I want to carry
a phone around with me which I don't intend to do unless
I'm travelling, but because it's cheaper. As to toilets, we
had the luxury of an indoor toilet in my town when I was
born, but the houses on Whinney Hill a short walk away
had outhouses, and if you walked up Whinney Hill along
the back instead of along the street, it stank.
You seem to be saying that the reason we live better
these days is because we coddle the rich. You're a
fool, IMO, if you believe that. As a post here lately
quoted Robert Reich (whom I trust more than all the
Republicans in the world added together), it's a myth
(I myself would have said "it's propaganda") that the
rich create wealth. Wealth is created by the Middle
Class buying things. The "evil rich" don't give: they
take. My car, such as it is, is American though I didn't
buy it. It was my mom's old car and I've put less than
a thousand miles a year on it. If only rich people
bought computers, computers would never have
evolved. Unlike yourself, I'm not a sycophant for the
rich.
I found the same text from Robert Reich, although
in a different format than as it was originally posted
here (by Wolfbat, I'm pretty sure): "The three biggest
http://robertreich.org/post/113280648985
There's far more wisdom in those three points than
there is in the entire Republican Party, IMV.
Just for my own nostalgia, here's Whinney Hill
as it looks today. Its official name is "Oldgate Lane".
The houses fronting the Lane look the same, but
there weren't any houses behind them when I
was a little kid. There was no "Wood Street" or
"School Street" which there are now in the picture,
unless my memory is failing me. Houses must
have been knocked down to create access to the
new houses, even though the bricks of the wall
along Wood Street look as old as the others. The
outhouses, of course, must be gone now.
Oldgate Lane is steeper further down, It was
nicknamed "Whinney Hill", from the days before
cars, when horses had to pull loads up the hill.
Very few people had cars when I was a kid.
Thrybergh is in the Domesday Book, so it's
existed at least as far back as 1066, though the
closest thing to that age now is Conisborough
Athelstane's castle in Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe"
https://tinyurl.com/y7mnpzdr
I'm not saying we live well because we "coddle" the rich, we live well
because our society and free enterprise system rewards those who
invent, discover, and distribute electricity, the automobile,
computers, television, the phone, radio, etc. -- men like Edison,
Tesla, Ford, Gates, and Jobs, to name a few. It's easy to take all
these things for granted, but today, in many respects we live better
than a 19th century king. I developed cataracts in both eyes in my
40's. Today I would be half blind if it weren't for an English doctor,
Harold Ridley, who invented intraocular lens implant surgery in 1950.
If he got rich doing it, more power to him. Thanks to Dr. Ridley I'm
20/20. (-8
Moderation would be necessary for a just society.
El Castor
2018-01-11 17:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
islander
2018-01-11 18:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
Sure, but there are reasons that China is motivated to use North Korea
to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.
El Castor
2018-01-12 04:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
Sure, but there are reasons that China is motivated to use North Korea
to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.
China does not want a united US friendly Korea sitting on it's border,
but I doubt they are interested in a nuclear war on their border,
either.
islander
2018-01-12 16:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
Sure, but there are reasons that China is motivated to use North Korea
to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.
China does not want a united US friendly Korea sitting on it's border,
but I doubt they are interested in a nuclear war on their border,
either.
Sure, but before Trump there was little chance of a nuclear war. In
fact, the Clinton era Agreed Framework was successful in getting North
Korea to the bargaining table and would have eliminated the North's
plutonium reactor. Clinton was not able to get ratification of that
deal by the Republican Congress, so he used the same approach as Obama
in implementing the Iran nuclear deal (with the same vulnerability of
being overturned by a Republican president). Unfortunately, GW Bush
reneged on the deal over the objections of Powell who was then serving
as Secretary of State. The result was the North Korea kicked out the
IAEA inspectors and resumed working on their weapons program.

It seems like whenever the Democrats made progress, even against
Republican opposition, that progress is lost when the Republicans gain
power. No wonder North Korea doesn't trust us!
El Castor
2018-01-12 21:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
Sure, but there are reasons that China is motivated to use North Korea
to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.
China does not want a united US friendly Korea sitting on it's border,
but I doubt they are interested in a nuclear war on their border,
either.
Sure, but before Trump there was little chance of a nuclear war. In
fact, the Clinton era Agreed Framework was successful in getting North
Korea to the bargaining table and would have eliminated the North's
plutonium reactor. Clinton was not able to get ratification of that
deal by the Republican Congress, so he used the same approach as Obama
in implementing the Iran nuclear deal (with the same vulnerability of
being overturned by a Republican president). Unfortunately, GW Bush
reneged on the deal over the objections of Powell who was then serving
as Secretary of State. The result was the North Korea kicked out the
IAEA inspectors and resumed working on their weapons program.
It seems like whenever the Democrats made progress, even against
Republican opposition, that progress is lost when the Republicans gain
power. No wonder North Korea doesn't trust us!
North Korea promises and then renigs. Obama had 8 years -- years
during which North Korea continued to develop nukes and ICBMs. North
Korea had 4 nuclear tests during the Obama administration -- the last
2 in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea

When Obama left office he handed Trump the mess that he had done
nothing to stop. Now it's all Trump's fault? BTW -- Iran is reputed to
have had scientists on hand to witness each of those Korean test. How
long before Kim starts exporting his bombs?
islander
2018-01-13 15:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
Sure, but there are reasons that China is motivated to use North Korea
to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.
China does not want a united US friendly Korea sitting on it's border,
but I doubt they are interested in a nuclear war on their border,
either.
Sure, but before Trump there was little chance of a nuclear war. In
fact, the Clinton era Agreed Framework was successful in getting North
Korea to the bargaining table and would have eliminated the North's
plutonium reactor. Clinton was not able to get ratification of that
deal by the Republican Congress, so he used the same approach as Obama
in implementing the Iran nuclear deal (with the same vulnerability of
being overturned by a Republican president). Unfortunately, GW Bush
reneged on the deal over the objections of Powell who was then serving
as Secretary of State. The result was the North Korea kicked out the
IAEA inspectors and resumed working on their weapons program.
It seems like whenever the Democrats made progress, even against
Republican opposition, that progress is lost when the Republicans gain
power. No wonder North Korea doesn't trust us!
North Korea promises and then renigs. Obama had 8 years -- years
during which North Korea continued to develop nukes and ICBMs. North
Korea had 4 nuclear tests during the Obama administration -- the last
2 in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea
When Obama left office he handed Trump the mess that he had done
nothing to stop. Now it's all Trump's fault? BTW -- Iran is reputed to
have had scientists on hand to witness each of those Korean test. How
long before Kim starts exporting his bombs?
Do you understand the irony of that statement? Obama was pretty busy
with the mess that the GW Bush administration had left him and Obama did
not have the benefit of a friendly Congress.
El Castor
2018-01-13 20:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
Sure, but there are reasons that China is motivated to use North Korea
to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.
China does not want a united US friendly Korea sitting on it's border,
but I doubt they are interested in a nuclear war on their border,
either.
Sure, but before Trump there was little chance of a nuclear war. In
fact, the Clinton era Agreed Framework was successful in getting North
Korea to the bargaining table and would have eliminated the North's
plutonium reactor. Clinton was not able to get ratification of that
deal by the Republican Congress, so he used the same approach as Obama
in implementing the Iran nuclear deal (with the same vulnerability of
being overturned by a Republican president). Unfortunately, GW Bush
reneged on the deal over the objections of Powell who was then serving
as Secretary of State. The result was the North Korea kicked out the
IAEA inspectors and resumed working on their weapons program.
It seems like whenever the Democrats made progress, even against
Republican opposition, that progress is lost when the Republicans gain
power. No wonder North Korea doesn't trust us!
North Korea promises and then renigs. Obama had 8 years -- years
during which North Korea continued to develop nukes and ICBMs. North
Korea had 4 nuclear tests during the Obama administration -- the last
2 in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea
When Obama left office he handed Trump the mess that he had done
nothing to stop. Now it's all Trump's fault? BTW -- Iran is reputed to
have had scientists on hand to witness each of those Korean test. How
long before Kim starts exporting his bombs?
Do you understand the irony of that statement? Obama was pretty busy
with the mess that the GW Bush administration had left him and Obama did
not have the benefit of a friendly Congress.
Too busy to deal with Korea? But he had time to play 333 rounds of
golf. And what about Korea did Obama want to do that congress would
not allow? The blame game aside, can we agree that N Korea's
miniaturized (warhead) bomb production is worrisome. Combine that with
their need for cash, and YIKES! Maybe Israel will nuke the fat boy?
That would be convenient. (-8
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-13 20:45:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:22:07 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
Sure, but there are reasons that China is motivated to use North Korea
to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.
China does not want a united US friendly Korea sitting on it's border,
but I doubt they are interested in a nuclear war on their border,
either.
Sure, but before Trump there was little chance of a nuclear war. In
fact, the Clinton era Agreed Framework was successful in getting North
Korea to the bargaining table and would have eliminated the North's
plutonium reactor. Clinton was not able to get ratification of that
deal by the Republican Congress, so he used the same approach as Obama
in implementing the Iran nuclear deal (with the same vulnerability of
being overturned by a Republican president). Unfortunately, GW Bush
reneged on the deal over the objections of Powell who was then serving
as Secretary of State. The result was the North Korea kicked out the
IAEA inspectors and resumed working on their weapons program.
It seems like whenever the Democrats made progress, even against
Republican opposition, that progress is lost when the Republicans gain
power. No wonder North Korea doesn't trust us!
North Korea promises and then renigs. Obama had 8 years -- years
during which North Korea continued to develop nukes and ICBMs. North
Korea had 4 nuclear tests during the Obama administration -- the last
2 in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea
When Obama left office he handed Trump the mess that he had done
nothing to stop. Now it's all Trump's fault? BTW -- Iran is reputed to
have had scientists on hand to witness each of those Korean test. How
long before Kim starts exporting his bombs?
Do you understand the irony of that statement? Obama was pretty busy
with the mess that the GW Bush administration had left him and Obama did
not have the benefit of a friendly Congress.
Too busy to deal with Korea? But he had time to play 333 rounds of
golf. And what about Korea did Obama want to do that congress would
not allow? The blame game aside, can we agree that N Korea's
miniaturized (warhead) bomb production is worrisome. Combine that with
their need for cash, and YIKES! Maybe Israel will nuke the fat boy?
That would be convenient. (-8
You're talking through your hat. Everybody since the Korean
War has been "too busy" to deal with North Korea. The nukes
have increased the urgency, but they came into prominence
recently, in the Trump administration. Not that I blame
Trump for that: I don't. But it makes no sense at all to blame
it on Obama while ignoring all the presidents from Eisenhower
to Bush II.
El Castor
2018-01-14 09:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:22:07 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
Sure, but there are reasons that China is motivated to use North Korea
to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.
China does not want a united US friendly Korea sitting on it's border,
but I doubt they are interested in a nuclear war on their border,
either.
Sure, but before Trump there was little chance of a nuclear war. In
fact, the Clinton era Agreed Framework was successful in getting North
Korea to the bargaining table and would have eliminated the North's
plutonium reactor. Clinton was not able to get ratification of that
deal by the Republican Congress, so he used the same approach as Obama
in implementing the Iran nuclear deal (with the same vulnerability of
being overturned by a Republican president). Unfortunately, GW Bush
reneged on the deal over the objections of Powell who was then serving
as Secretary of State. The result was the North Korea kicked out the
IAEA inspectors and resumed working on their weapons program.
It seems like whenever the Democrats made progress, even against
Republican opposition, that progress is lost when the Republicans gain
power. No wonder North Korea doesn't trust us!
North Korea promises and then renigs. Obama had 8 years -- years
during which North Korea continued to develop nukes and ICBMs. North
Korea had 4 nuclear tests during the Obama administration -- the last
2 in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea
When Obama left office he handed Trump the mess that he had done
nothing to stop. Now it's all Trump's fault? BTW -- Iran is reputed to
have had scientists on hand to witness each of those Korean test. How
long before Kim starts exporting his bombs?
Do you understand the irony of that statement? Obama was pretty busy
with the mess that the GW Bush administration had left him and Obama did
not have the benefit of a friendly Congress.
Too busy to deal with Korea? But he had time to play 333 rounds of
golf. And what about Korea did Obama want to do that congress would
not allow? The blame game aside, can we agree that N Korea's
miniaturized (warhead) bomb production is worrisome. Combine that with
their need for cash, and YIKES! Maybe Israel will nuke the fat boy?
That would be convenient. (-8
You're talking through your hat. Everybody since the Korean
War has been "too busy" to deal with North Korea. The nukes
have increased the urgency, but they came into prominence
recently, in the Trump administration. Not that I blame
Trump for that: I don't. But it makes no sense at all to blame
it on Obama while ignoring all the presidents from Eisenhower
to Bush II.
Just replying to our mutual friend's claim that Obama was too busy to
deal with North Korea, and those damn unfriendly congressional
Republicans just got in his way. Still, 333 rounds of golf while fat
boy built his bombs?
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-14 18:10:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 01:46:45 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:22:07 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Too busy to deal with Korea? But he had time to play 333 rounds of
golf. And what about Korea did Obama want to do that congress would
not allow? The blame game aside, can we agree that N Korea's
miniaturized (warhead) bomb production is worrisome. Combine that with
their need for cash, and YIKES! Maybe Israel will nuke the fat boy?
That would be convenient. (-8
You're talking through your hat. Everybody since the Korean
War has been "too busy" to deal with North Korea. The nukes
have increased the urgency, but they came into prominence
recently, in the Trump administration. Not that I blame
Trump for that: I don't. But it makes no sense at all to blame
it on Obama while ignoring all the presidents from Eisenhower
to Bush II.
Just replying to our mutual friend's claim that Obama was too busy to
deal with North Korea, and those damn unfriendly congressional
Republicans just got in his way. Still, 333 rounds of golf while fat
boy built his bombs?
I notice you neglected to acknowledge the fact that your
Republican presidents and congresses didn't address the
problem either, or that the nuke situation has only arisen
now that Trump is president. (I don't blame Trump for
that, but it's hyper-partisan and ridiculous to blame Obama.)
islander
2018-01-14 16:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
Sure, but there are reasons that China is motivated to use North Korea
to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.
China does not want a united US friendly Korea sitting on it's border,
but I doubt they are interested in a nuclear war on their border,
either.
Sure, but before Trump there was little chance of a nuclear war. In
fact, the Clinton era Agreed Framework was successful in getting North
Korea to the bargaining table and would have eliminated the North's
plutonium reactor. Clinton was not able to get ratification of that
deal by the Republican Congress, so he used the same approach as Obama
in implementing the Iran nuclear deal (with the same vulnerability of
being overturned by a Republican president). Unfortunately, GW Bush
reneged on the deal over the objections of Powell who was then serving
as Secretary of State. The result was the North Korea kicked out the
IAEA inspectors and resumed working on their weapons program.
It seems like whenever the Democrats made progress, even against
Republican opposition, that progress is lost when the Republicans gain
power. No wonder North Korea doesn't trust us!
North Korea promises and then renigs. Obama had 8 years -- years
during which North Korea continued to develop nukes and ICBMs. North
Korea had 4 nuclear tests during the Obama administration -- the last
2 in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea
When Obama left office he handed Trump the mess that he had done
nothing to stop. Now it's all Trump's fault? BTW -- Iran is reputed to
have had scientists on hand to witness each of those Korean test. How
long before Kim starts exporting his bombs?
Do you understand the irony of that statement? Obama was pretty busy
with the mess that the GW Bush administration had left him and Obama did
not have the benefit of a friendly Congress.
Too busy to deal with Korea? But he had time to play 333 rounds of
golf. And what about Korea did Obama want to do that congress would
not allow? The blame game aside, can we agree that N Korea's
miniaturized (warhead) bomb production is worrisome. Combine that with
their need for cash, and YIKES! Maybe Israel will nuke the fat boy?
That would be convenient. (-8
Not likely or even desirable. And, what makes you think that anything
that Obama proposed would be approved by a hostile Republican Congress?
GW Bush clearly made things worse by failing to live up to the
agreements reached by the Clinton administration. Recall the expression
used frequently at the beginning of the GW Bush administration? ABC!

Now Trump is setting about making things worse again with his
ill-informed bluster while playing three times as much golf as Obama.
Are you blaming a nuclear armed North Korea on golf? Is this Jeff's
hypothesis of golf incited nuclear war? Hmmm. Ike also played a lot of
golf!
El Castor
2018-01-14 20:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:25:57 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:13:58 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
I never claimed that other news sources were perfect, just that RT is
a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Yes, but nobody's better at propaganda and "fake news"
than the US government. Nukes in Iraq and the threat
of Ho Chi Minh or El Salvador to the safety of capitalism
for example. Those got us into some nasty, unproductive,
and downright "evil" situations. Think I should still trust
everything the US says? Well guess what, I don't.
Well good, I don't either -- but RT is still a propaganda arm of the
Russian government.
Yep, and there's no shortage of propaganda arms of the US
government too, including most of the non-PBS news programs.
If you only listen to one side, the chances are greatly reduced
of realizing when you're being played as a patsy. as with most
of the American adventures in the Americas south of the US
border, and with situations in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine,
and Vietnam. I'm more sympathetic with trying to get rid of
the North Korean government, since that really does seem
horrible to me. In the best of all possible worlds, it would
collapse and South Korea would welcome the North Koreans
back with open arms, as Germany welcomed East Germany
back when the oppressive communist regime there
collapsed. I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall, by the way.
My Swiss friend gave it to me. It's really solid, more like
rock than concrete.
Somebody in this group mentioned that North Koreans
generally don't fare well when they escape to the South.
Militaristic indoctrination is hard to get rid of, I guess, so
they don't know how to live in a new and strange world.
It has to be done though, even if it's tough. East Germany
still has residual problems, or so I'm told.
There is a small indication of effort by North and South Korea to take
charge of their own future in the negotiations to allow North Korea to
participate in the Olympics. Discussion about nukes is off the table in
these talks with North Korea insisting that this is a negotiation that
they want to have with the US. Is this like the ping-pong diplomacy
that preceded a warming of our relations with China? Perhaps, but it is
more likely an attempt to drive a wedge between South Korea and the US,
exploiting a bungled attempt by Trump to punish South Korea for supposed
trade abuses. China sees South Korea as a competitor in trade and would
encourage anything that interferes with their access to the US market.
Note that since the scuttling of the TPP that China and South Korea have
joined the continuing multi-nation trade talks raising fears that China
will dominate that forum, something that Trump seems to be particularly
inept at understanding or dealing with. That won't be good for us.
So, things are complicated and the two Koreas are about much more than
nukes.
The North Korean regime is so repressive that citizens of the North
are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. When they do make
it to the south they are like the mythical children raised by wolves
-- little more than automatons, completely unaware of the world. And
there sits Kim -- his only concern, himself and the preservation of
his dynasty. If he believed he was about to be toppled, what would he
do? A very very scary situation. The creators of the atom bomb had
grave misgivings about what they were doing. I think they were right.
Kim's next logical step will be the sale of nukes to Iran, and any
terrorist that can lay his hands on a pile of money. Yikes!
Sure, but there are reasons that China is motivated to use North Korea
to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.
China does not want a united US friendly Korea sitting on it's border,
but I doubt they are interested in a nuclear war on their border,
either.
Sure, but before Trump there was little chance of a nuclear war. In
fact, the Clinton era Agreed Framework was successful in getting North
Korea to the bargaining table and would have eliminated the North's
plutonium reactor. Clinton was not able to get ratification of that
deal by the Republican Congress, so he used the same approach as Obama
in implementing the Iran nuclear deal (with the same vulnerability of
being overturned by a Republican president). Unfortunately, GW Bush
reneged on the deal over the objections of Powell who was then serving
as Secretary of State. The result was the North Korea kicked out the
IAEA inspectors and resumed working on their weapons program.
It seems like whenever the Democrats made progress, even against
Republican opposition, that progress is lost when the Republicans gain
power. No wonder North Korea doesn't trust us!
North Korea promises and then renigs. Obama had 8 years -- years
during which North Korea continued to develop nukes and ICBMs. North
Korea had 4 nuclear tests during the Obama administration -- the last
2 in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea
When Obama left office he handed Trump the mess that he had done
nothing to stop. Now it's all Trump's fault? BTW -- Iran is reputed to
have had scientists on hand to witness each of those Korean test. How
long before Kim starts exporting his bombs?
Do you understand the irony of that statement? Obama was pretty busy
with the mess that the GW Bush administration had left him and Obama did
not have the benefit of a friendly Congress.
Too busy to deal with Korea? But he had time to play 333 rounds of
golf. And what about Korea did Obama want to do that congress would
not allow? The blame game aside, can we agree that N Korea's
miniaturized (warhead) bomb production is worrisome. Combine that with
their need for cash, and YIKES! Maybe Israel will nuke the fat boy?
That would be convenient. (-8
Not likely or even desirable.
Not likely, but maybe desirable. Israel does have an interest in a
de-nuclearized North Korea. The North Koreans and Iranians appear to
be working closely together. A nuke detonated in Tel Aviv would
probably be the end of Israel.
Post by islander
And, what makes you think that anything
that Obama proposed would be approved by a hostile Republican Congress?
Would you care to document that? I have searched for evidence, or even
a hint, that a Republican congress was somehow stifling Obama's desire
to get tough with North Korea. Found nothing. Maybe you can do better?

From 2013 ...
"Obama’s ‘strategic patience’ on North Korea is turning into strategic
neglect"
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/02/14/obamas-strategic-patience-on-north-korea-is-turning-into-strategic-neglect/

Three years later ...
"Eight years of U.S. and U.N. diplomatic maneuvering during President
Barack Obama’s tenure has left North Korea increasingly isolated. But
it has still utterly failed to achieve the primary goal of curbing the
country’s nuclear weapons and missile program. North Korea has
detonated five nuclear weapons in underground tests since 2006 — four
while Obama was in office — and conducted a flurry of missile launches
for its growing missile arsenal. U.S. intelligence officers believe it
is only a matter of time before the regime builds a nuclear-tipped
intercontinental missile capable of striking the United States."
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/30/u-n-security-council-sanctions-north-korea-nuclear-weapons-kim-jong-un-trump-obama/
Post by islander
GW Bush clearly made things worse by failing to live up to the
agreements reached by the Clinton administration. Recall the expression
used frequently at the beginning of the GW Bush administration? ABC!
Now Trump is setting about making things worse again with his
ill-informed bluster while playing three times as much golf as Obama.
Are you blaming a nuclear armed North Korea on golf? Is this Jeff's
hypothesis of golf incited nuclear war? Hmmm. Ike also played a lot of
golf!
islander
2018-01-15 16:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
I have searched for evidence, or even
a hint, that a Republican congress was somehow stifling Obama's desire
to get tough with North Korea. Found nothing. Maybe you can do better?
Perhaps you are looking to confirm a faulty premise, that the solution
is to get tough. That backfired for GW Bush and isn't working for Trump.

Was "strategic patience" a good policy? We will probably never know
because Trump definitely destroyed any notion of patience.

Obama's foreign policy was always to favor diplomacy over militancy.
This worked to secure nuclear materials around the world despite
withdrawal by Russia from the effort in 2012. Politifact published a
good overview of progress at:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/382/secure-nuclear-weapons-materials-in-four-years/

Obama's report on the progress of this effort in 2016 acknowledges that
the job was "by no means finished."
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-cites-slow-progess-on-nuclear-security-more-work-remains/3264292.html

Still, eliminating the material that could have been used to produce 150
nuclear warheads is a significant achievement!

While Trump has only been in office for a year, it appears that he
doesn't have a lot of interest in the program, even suggesting that
South Korea and Japan should develop their own nuclear programs. He
seems hell bent on backing out of the Iran deal. It remains to be seen
if he places any priority on the continuing world-wide project to reduce
or protect nuclear materials.

What do you think Trump will do? Oh, that is silly. No one knows from
one day to the next what Trump will do about anything!
El Castor
2018-01-15 20:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I have searched for evidence, or even
a hint, that a Republican congress was somehow stifling Obama's desire
to get tough with North Korea. Found nothing. Maybe you can do better?
Perhaps you are looking to confirm a faulty premise, that the solution
is to get tough. That backfired for GW Bush and isn't working for Trump.
Was "strategic patience" a good policy? We will probably never know
because Trump definitely destroyed any notion of patience.
Obama's foreign policy was always to favor diplomacy over militancy.
This worked to secure nuclear materials around the world despite
withdrawal by Russia from the effort in 2012. Politifact published a
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/382/secure-nuclear-weapons-materials-in-four-years/
Focusing on North Korea, Obama's policies failed. Would tougher have
worked? I don't know, but Obama's "strategic patience" was of no
benefit. Development continued unhindered. Did, or would, a Republican
congress have prevented him from doing something else? We will never
know, because the "something else" was never tried or proposed.
Post by islander
Obama's report on the progress of this effort in 2016 acknowledges that
the job was "by no means finished."
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-cites-slow-progess-on-nuclear-security-more-work-remains/3264292.html
Still, eliminating the material that could have been used to produce 150
nuclear warheads is a significant achievement!
While Trump has only been in office for a year, it appears that he
doesn't have a lot of interest in the program, even suggesting that
South Korea and Japan should develop their own nuclear programs. He
seems hell bent on backing out of the Iran deal. It remains to be seen
if he places any priority on the continuing world-wide project to reduce
or protect nuclear materials.
Suggesting that South Korea and Japan should develop their own nuclear
programs appears to be a good idea, even if not a good thing to
actually do, in that China is the key to influencing Kim, and China
does NOT want a nuclear South Korea or Japan.
Post by islander
What do you think Trump will do? Oh, that is silly. No one knows from
one day to the next what Trump will do about anything!
Perhaps unpredictability is one of Trump's greatest assets. It might
persuade one of Kim's generals to look for a final solution to the Fat
Boy problem. I'm currently reading Andrew Jackson and The Miracle of
New Orleans. Trump and Jackson share some personality traits --
populism, a bad temper, and a rash unpredictable nature. It worked for
Jackson.
islander
2018-01-17 23:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I have searched for evidence, or even
a hint, that a Republican congress was somehow stifling Obama's desire
to get tough with North Korea. Found nothing. Maybe you can do better?
Perhaps you are looking to confirm a faulty premise, that the solution
is to get tough. That backfired for GW Bush and isn't working for Trump.
Was "strategic patience" a good policy? We will probably never know
because Trump definitely destroyed any notion of patience.
Obama's foreign policy was always to favor diplomacy over militancy.
This worked to secure nuclear materials around the world despite
withdrawal by Russia from the effort in 2012. Politifact published a
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/382/secure-nuclear-weapons-materials-in-four-years/
Focusing on North Korea, Obama's policies failed. Would tougher have
worked? I don't know, but Obama's "strategic patience" was of no
benefit. Development continued unhindered. Did, or would, a Republican
congress have prevented him from doing something else? We will never
know, because the "something else" was never tried or proposed.
Post by islander
Obama's report on the progress of this effort in 2016 acknowledges that
the job was "by no means finished."
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-cites-slow-progess-on-nuclear-security-more-work-remains/3264292.html
Still, eliminating the material that could have been used to produce 150
nuclear warheads is a significant achievement!
While Trump has only been in office for a year, it appears that he
doesn't have a lot of interest in the program, even suggesting that
South Korea and Japan should develop their own nuclear programs. He
seems hell bent on backing out of the Iran deal. It remains to be seen
if he places any priority on the continuing world-wide project to reduce
or protect nuclear materials.
Suggesting that South Korea and Japan should develop their own nuclear
programs appears to be a good idea, even if not a good thing to
actually do, in that China is the key to influencing Kim, and China
does NOT want a nuclear South Korea or Japan.
Post by islander
What do you think Trump will do? Oh, that is silly. No one knows from
one day to the next what Trump will do about anything!
Perhaps unpredictability is one of Trump's greatest assets. It might
persuade one of Kim's generals to look for a final solution to the Fat
Boy problem. I'm currently reading Andrew Jackson and The Miracle of
New Orleans. Trump and Jackson share some personality traits --
populism, a bad temper, and a rash unpredictable nature. It worked for
Jackson.
Jackson didn't have to deal with nuclear weapons. Jackson was evidently
a hero of Trump and he often did public events in front of a painting of
Jackson. That is, until he did an award ceremony for the Indian code
talkers in front of the portrait. Jackson is not very popular among the
Indians! What a clueless idiot!

Trump's unpredictable nature and transparent bigotry appears to have
screwed up the negotiations over DACA and is now threatening a
government shutdown. How is that working for you?

Josh Rosenbluth
2017-11-13 15:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
What attempts by the government to shut down RT?
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
That was in retaliation for Russia ordering the USA to reduce its
diplomatic staff in Russia. It has no relevance to whether the USA is
forcibly suppressing opposition.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-13 16:40:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:27:36 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
What attempts by the government to shut down RT?
That's what I hear. Maybe it's wrong and no RT
stations in the US have been closed down, overtly
or otherwise, and there has been no pressure from
any department or surrogate in the USA to close any
down. I know that RT is still broadcasting in San
Francisco at least, and I'm very glad of that.

I just watched an RT program about Scottish
politics, including Scotland's desire to stay in the EU.
I had a lot of trouble understanding the fast-paced
Scottish speech in combination with the heavy
Scottish accent: I could have used an interpreter.
One really unpleasant (for me) piece of information
was that a powerful and wealthy figure in Scottish
politics was making use of tax havens to avoid taxes,
as wealthy people in the USA also do of course.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
That was in retaliation for Russia ordering the USA to reduce its
diplomatic staff in Russia. It has no relevance to whether the USA is
forcibly suppressing opposition.
After the closing of the Russian embassy in San
Francisco. I remember that Russia in response
ordered the USA to reduce its staff in Moscow
proportionately. I don't want to get into who makes
things worse more than who else, but the USA and
Russia should IMV be talking to each other, and it's
unfortunate for peace and harmony if that process
is going the other way.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-11-13 17:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:27:36 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
What attempts by the government to shut down RT?
That's what I hear.
"That's what I hear" is not a convincing case for a claim that the USA
forcibly suppresses opposition.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Maybe it's wrong and no RT
stations in the US have been closed down, overtly
or otherwise, and there has been no pressure from
any department or surrogate in the USA to close any
down. I know that RT is still broadcasting in San
Francisco at least, and I'm very glad of that.
I just watched an RT program about Scottish
politics, including Scotland's desire to stay in the EU.
I had a lot of trouble understanding the fast-paced
Scottish speech in combination with the heavy
Scottish accent: I could have used an interpreter.
One really unpleasant (for me) piece of information
was that a powerful and wealthy figure in Scottish
politics was making use of tax havens to avoid taxes,
as wealthy people in the USA also do of course.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
That was in retaliation for Russia ordering the USA to reduce its
diplomatic staff in Russia. It has no relevance to whether the USA is
forcibly suppressing opposition.
After the closing of the Russian embassy in San
Francisco. I remember that Russia in response
ordered the USA to reduce its staff in Moscow
proportionately.
Nope. We placed sanctions on Russia, they cut our staff, and we closed
the consulate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/us/politics/russia-consulate-close-retaliation.html
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I don't want to get into who makes
things worse more than who else, but the USA and
Russia should IMV be talking to each other, and it's
unfortunate for peace and harmony if that process
is going the other way.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-13 18:40:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:59:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:27:36 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:42:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You are the perfect example of someone who expresses their opinion on
Russia without forcible suppression.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that the USA is not forcibly suppressing the opposition who
disagree with the government about Russia.
Thanks for the explanation, though I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
What attempts by the government to shut down RT?
That's what I hear.
"That's what I hear" is not a convincing case for a claim that the USA
forcibly suppresses opposition.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Maybe it's wrong and no RT
stations in the US have been closed down, overtly
or otherwise, and there has been no pressure from
any department or surrogate in the USA to close any
down. I know that RT is still broadcasting in San
Francisco at least, and I'm very glad of that.
I just watched an RT program about Scottish
politics, including Scotland's desire to stay in the EU.
I had a lot of trouble understanding the fast-paced
Scottish speech in combination with the heavy
Scottish accent: I could have used an interpreter.
One really unpleasant (for me) piece of information
was that a powerful and wealthy figure in Scottish
politics was making use of tax havens to avoid taxes,
as wealthy people in the USA also do of course.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
That was in retaliation for Russia ordering the USA to reduce its
diplomatic staff in Russia. It has no relevance to whether the USA is
forcibly suppressing opposition.
After the closing of the Russian embassy in San
Francisco. I remember that Russia in response
ordered the USA to reduce its staff in Moscow
proportionately.
Nope.
You're right: not yet, apparently:
http://tinyurl.com/y93j9ou9
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
We placed sanctions on Russia, they cut our staff, and we closed
the consulate.
I don't see how you get "they started it" out of that.
Maybe you have some justification in mind for the US placing
"sanctions", but if so you didn't include that justification.
I probably wouldn't buy it even if you had, because there'd
be a chain of other things leading up to it.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/us/politics/russia-consulate-close-retaliation.html
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I don't want to get into who makes
things worse more than who else, but the USA and
Russia should IMV be talking to each other, and it's
unfortunate for peace and harmony if that process
is going the other way.
Josh
2017-11-13 19:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:59:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
That was in retaliation for Russia ordering the USA to reduce its
diplomatic staff in Russia. It has no relevance to whether the USA is
forcibly suppressing opposition.
After the closing of the Russian embassy in San
Francisco. I remember that Russia in response
ordered the USA to reduce its staff in Moscow
proportionately.
Nope.
http://tinyurl.com/y93j9ou9
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
We placed sanctions on Russia, they cut our staff, and we closed
the consulate.
I don't see how you get "they started it" out of that.
I didn't claim they started it.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Maybe you have some justification in mind for the US placing
"sanctions", but if so you didn't include that justification.
I probably wouldn't buy it even if you had, because there'd
be a chain of other things leading up to it.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-13 22:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:59:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
That was in retaliation for Russia ordering the USA to reduce its
diplomatic staff in Russia. It has no relevance to whether the USA is
forcibly suppressing opposition.
After the closing of the Russian embassy in San
Francisco. I remember that Russia in response
ordered the USA to reduce its staff in Moscow
proportionately.
Nope.
http://tinyurl.com/y93j9ou9
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
We placed sanctions on Russia, they cut our staff, and we closed
the consulate.
I don't see how you get "they started it" out of that.
I didn't claim they started it.
Does that mean you agree that the USA started the
recent kerfuffle?
Post by Josh
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Maybe you have some justification in mind for the US placing
"sanctions", but if so you didn't include that justification.
I probably wouldn't buy it even if you had, because there'd
be a chain of other things leading up to it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-11-14 01:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:59:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
That was in retaliation for Russia ordering the USA to reduce its
diplomatic staff in Russia. It has no relevance to whether the USA is
forcibly suppressing opposition.
After the closing of the Russian embassy in San
Francisco. I remember that Russia in response
ordered the USA to reduce its staff in Moscow
proportionately.
Nope.
http://tinyurl.com/y93j9ou9
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
We placed sanctions on Russia, they cut our staff, and we closed
the consulate.
I don't see how you get "they started it" out of that.
I didn't claim they started it.
Does that mean you agree that the USA started the
recent kerfuffle?
I have no opinion one way or the other on that one, other than to repeat
it has no relevance to your claim that the USA is forcibly supprression
opposition.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-14 02:40:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:38:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:59:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
That was in retaliation for Russia ordering the USA to reduce its
diplomatic staff in Russia. It has no relevance to whether the USA is
forcibly suppressing opposition.
After the closing of the Russian embassy in San
Francisco. I remember that Russia in response
ordered the USA to reduce its staff in Moscow
proportionately.
Nope.
http://tinyurl.com/y93j9ou9
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
We placed sanctions on Russia, they cut our staff, and we closed
the consulate.
I don't see how you get "they started it" out of that.
I didn't claim they started it.
Does that mean you agree that the USA started the
recent kerfuffle?
I have no opinion one way or the other on that one,
Then your opinions lack a foundation.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
other than to repeat
it has no relevance to your claim that the USA is forcibly supprression
opposition.
Here's everything I wrote that seems plausibly relevant:

---

... I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.

So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.

---

I think publicly identifying oneself as a "communist"
in the USA is still an invitation to harassment, at least.
That certainly seemed to be the practice when I was
a kid. Everybody, especially school teachers, was
too intimidated to say one word out of the tacitly or
explicitly prescribed way.

---

(Josh) >I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition"
refers to >silencing opposing political viewpoints.

<me> The USA certainly does plenty of that.

<My note now> I was thinking of Cuba and El Salvador for
example, when I wrote that, and in those
cases the USA certainly did do "plenty of
that".

------------------------------------------------------------------


That's as much time as I intend to waste answering
you further on this matter.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-11-14 04:37:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:38:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:59:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
That was in retaliation for Russia ordering the USA to reduce its
diplomatic staff in Russia. It has no relevance to whether the USA is
forcibly suppressing opposition.
After the closing of the Russian embassy in San
Francisco. I remember that Russia in response
ordered the USA to reduce its staff in Moscow
proportionately.
Nope.
http://tinyurl.com/y93j9ou9
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
We placed sanctions on Russia, they cut our staff, and we closed
the consulate.
I don't see how you get "they started it" out of that.
I didn't claim they started it.
Does that mean you agree that the USA started the
recent kerfuffle?
I have no opinion one way or the other on that one,
Then your opinions lack a foundation.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
other than to repeat
it has no relevance to your claim that the USA is forcibly supprression
opposition.
---
... I would regard
the apparent attempts by the gummt to shut down RT
as "forcible suppression", though not physically forced
on the actual bodies of people.
So far I don't know of any move to shut down RT in
the San Francisco area, so there hasn't been any of
that here. When the Russian Ambassadors in San
Francisco were forced to leave their San Francisco
Embassy quickly a few months ago at the demand
of the US Federal government, though, US Feds did
move right in and tear the place apart as soon as
they had left, looking for something I guess, even
though that was technically illegal without a warrant
since Russia did still "own" the place.
---
I think publicly identifying oneself as a "communist"
in the USA is still an invitation to harassment, at least.
That certainly seemed to be the practice when I was
a kid. Everybody, especially school teachers, was
too intimidated to say one word out of the tacitly or
explicitly prescribed way.
---
(Josh) >I'm pretty sure that "forcible suppression of opposition"
refers to >silencing opposing political viewpoints.
<me> The USA certainly does plenty of that.
<My note now> I was thinking of Cuba and El Salvador for
example, when I wrote that, and in those
cases the USA certainly did do "plenty of
that".
By "opposition", I'm pretty sure islander was referring to domestic
political opposition.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
------------------------------------------------------------------
That's as much time as I intend to waste answering
you further on this matter.
El Castor
2017-11-12 21:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
"...forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
"...forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and
commerce."
Every country, including the USA, engages in
"forcible suppression of opposition". Otherwise
they wouldn't be "countries" very long. Nobody
would pay taxes if they didn't want to, or
observe laws they disagreed with.
What Islander is referring to is (I believe) political repression.
Assassination or imprisonment of political opponents. Cuba, Venezuela,
North Korea, etc.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-11 14:32:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:45:00 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:22:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:07:26 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:49:20 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
\On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:28:15 -0800, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Please give me an example of a news broadcaster that the government
has censored. You can't.
Of course I can't. What do you think "censored"
means? It means "play along, or else!" I do see
newscasters "sucking up to the US government,
as it seems to me, all the time. Not all of them
routinely suck up completely: some of them do
push the limits, but the limits are plainly there.
The most obvious limits are what is "classified".
If a newscaster gets hold of something classified,
he'd better not reveal it while he's still in the USA
or within striking distance, if he values his ass.
I can name some where the lid has been blown
off, conspicuously including Cuba and Vietnam,
but the lid wasn't blown off until the US actions
against those were ancient history. Crimea and
the Russian territory that was added to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Khrushchev when
Ukraine was just a department of the USSR,
continuing to be included in independent Ukraine
is now coming apart and the USA is opposing
the coming apart (god know why except just to
needle Russia). That may end up as big a
scandal as Cuba and Vietnam and El Salvador,
but that remains to be seen because it hasn't
concluded yet.
The US helping kick Russia out of Afghanistan
and then going into Afghanistan itself, much
to the great and increasing woe of the US as
is already all too conspicuous, is another.
The pilots of those planes that crashed into
the Twin Towers were mostly Saudi, not
Afghani. Bin Ladin was Saudi. It would have
been so much better for us if we'd just let
the Russians keep Afghanistan. There's
not all that much to steal there, so why did
we want it so badly and why did we want
to kick the Russians out so badly? That
sure didn't work out well for the USA AT ALL!
Post by El Castor
As for RT, it's an agency of a foreign
government,
So is Mickey Mouse if he says anything
the CIA doesn't like. (Or that "Homeland
Security" doesn't like - it's hard to keep
track of the shifting sands.)
Post by El Castor
so maybe, depending on the law.
Miscellaneous ramblings aside, glad you admit that the censorship
which you appear to irrationally fear, does not exist.
I said no such thing.
Post by El Castor
As for
revealing classified information, of course that is illegal for anyone
to do.
It is "censorship".
Post by El Castor
And, I would add that the deliberate act of sucking up to Trump
or Hillary is an important part of free speech -- in fact it is the
essence of free speech.
They can suck up if they want, but they should be
called on it. RT is one of the few outfits that will
call them on it, even if RT doesn't call Putin and
the Russian government on what they do.
Post by El Castor
The screaming mobs of Antifa demonstrators do
not understand that, which is the greatest danger they pose.
I've yet to encounter antifa. I read here that the
loonie who killed all those people in a Texas church
started by covering the pulpit with an "antifa" flag,
but loonies do all kind of things: it could just have
easily been a right-wing flag such as a swastika.
The claims connecting the Texas loon with Antifa appear to be entirely
fake -- as in lies. That doesn't excuse the Antifa riots and the
damage they did to UC Berkeley, but every lunatic with a gun or club
can't be blamed on Antifa.
I'm not very pro-fa.
That's good. But what is a fascist -- not who, what?
I'll answer "who", rather than get into word games.
In my opinion, you are.
You're free to have any opinion you want of me.
Fascism, or Germany's National Socialism, means central government
control, but not ownership, of the economy, with a strong dose of
nationalism thrown in. Basically a model for European socialism, minus
the nationalism.
Back to the dictionary again, eh, even slyly adding your
own twist at the end to try to manoeuvre things around
to where you'd like them. I'll go instead with a judge
who famously said some years back that he couldn't pin
down a definition of pornography, but he knew it when
he saw it.
mg
2017-11-08 09:32:19 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:27:42 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:22:19 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
It’s time to completely defund NPR and halt its dangerous, dishonest anti-America rhetoric rooted in hatred of Trump and racism toward whites
Thursday, November 02, 2017 by Jayson Veley
Amen. I am at a loss to understand why after 10 months Trump hasn't
cut the funds. It would have been first on my list.
In most cases, on any given subject, I would probably go
along with whatever Noam Chomsky says and he says that NPR
supports the status quo and the establishment. So, down with
NPR. Let's cut off their funding:

"Noam Chomsky has criticized NPR as being biased toward
ideological power and the status quo. He alleges that the
parameters of debate on a given topic are very consciously
curtailed. He says that since the network maintains studios
in ideological centers of opinion such as Washington, the
network feels the necessity to carefully consider what kinds
of dissenting opinion are acceptable. Thus, political
pragmatism, perhaps induced by fear of offending public
officials who control some of NPR's funding (via CPB), often
determines what views are suitable for broadcast, meaning
that opinions critical of the structures of
national-interest-based foreign policy, capitalism, and
government bureaucracies (entailed by so-called "radical" or
"activist" politics) usually do not make it to air.[17]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR_controversies
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-08 10:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:27:42 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:22:19 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
It’s time to completely defund NPR and halt its dangerous, dishonest anti-America rhetoric rooted in hatred of Trump and racism toward whites
Thursday, November 02, 2017 by Jayson Veley
Amen. I am at a loss to understand why after 10 months Trump hasn't
cut the funds. It would have been first on my list.
In most cases, on any given subject, I would probably go
along with whatever Noam Chomsky says and he says that NPR
supports the status quo and the establishment. So, down with
"Noam Chomsky has criticized NPR as being biased toward
ideological power and the status quo. He alleges that the
parameters of debate on a given topic are very consciously
curtailed. He says that since the network maintains studios
in ideological centers of opinion such as Washington, the
network feels the necessity to carefully consider what kinds
of dissenting opinion are acceptable. Thus, political
pragmatism, perhaps induced by fear of offending public
officials who control some of NPR's funding (via CPB), often
determines what views are suitable for broadcast, meaning
that opinions critical of the structures of
national-interest-based foreign policy, capitalism, and
government bureaucracies (entailed by so-called "radical" or
"activist" politics) usually do not make it to air.[17]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR_controversies
No matter what the defects of NPR may be, I don't
think that putting NPR under control of an ultra-
right-wing government, or starving it out of existence
altogether, is he solution! That's been done in history
many times before, and the results have often been
seen as very regrettable by future ages.
me
2017-11-08 14:59:34 UTC
Permalink
If NPR can’t be eliminated I propose equal tax funding of additional broadcast stations. One for each political party that offers candidates. Why should only left-winger broadcasts be government subsidized?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-11-08 09:43:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:27:42 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:22:19 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
It’s time to completely defund NPR and halt its dangerous, dishonest anti-America rhetoric rooted in hatred of Trump and racism toward whites
Thursday, November 02, 2017 by Jayson Veley
Amen. I am at a loss to understand why after 10 months Trump hasn't
cut the funds. It would have been first on my list.
Wow, you're talking like this right after I saw Isabel
Allende on "Democracy Now", talking about the
supposed suicide of her father's first cousin Salvador
Allende, president of Chile, during the right-wing coup
in Chile that produced 27 years of military dictatorship
and wholesale murder. One thing she talked about is
that the death two weeks later of Pablo Neruda
supposedly of Cancer has apparently now been
proven to be poison injected into his stomach instead.
Neruda is the greatest poet Chile has ever had, and
was Salvador Allende's vice president, immensely
popular in Chile such that when he made visits, the
crowds would shout his poetry back to him.

Let's hear three somethings for right-wing politics,
but definitely not cheers.

Let's suppress EVERYTHING in the USA that
doesn't bow down to the will of the extreme right
wing! Yay! Let's make the USA look like Franco's
Spain, and show all these left-wing mf's what
true social order is REALLY like!
Jack Fate
2018-01-11 15:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by GLOBALIST
It’s time to completely defund NPR and halt its dangerous, dishonest anti-America rhetoric rooted in hatred of Trump and racism toward whites
Thursday, November 02, 2017 by Jayson Veley
When you think about it, NPR, or National Public Radio, really isn’t much different than networks like MSNBC and CNN. They all are hellbent on dragging this country further and further to the left, and each one is willing to spread lies and propaganda to do it. Other than the fact that one is on the radio and the other is on TV, perhaps the only real difference between NPR and left-wing cable news networks is that NPR is incredibly boring to listen to. At least when Rachel Maddow or Don Lemon spread lies about conservatives, they do it with some passion; on NPR, it’s monotone voices the entire way through.
Just as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS have done since the election of Donald Trump last November, NPR has cranked their propaganda knob up a couple of notches in hopes that they can derail the president’s administration and his agenda. Like typical leftists, the commentators over at NPR are always quick to paint the president in a bad light, often taking advantage of tragedies or civil unrest to imply that Trump and his supporters as racists and bigots.
This was the case made recently by Paul Craig Roberts, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy, in an article published on his website last month. Venting his sheer disgust for National Public Radio, Roberts wrote, “Listening to NPR this morning confirmed what I already knew. Charlottesville is being turned into another nail in President Trump’s coffin.
“NPR had no interest whatsoever in reporting the actual facts about what had occurred in Charlottesville,” Roberts continued. “The several ‘interviews’ with the like-minded were orchestrated to produce the desired propaganda result: It was all Trump’s fault. It was Trump’s fault for many reasons. He had stirred up White Supremacists and Nazis by appealing during the presidential election campaign to their supremacist views with his slogan ‘America first.’”
Paul Craig Roberts makes a very important point here: Left-wing networks like NPR have accumulated far too much control over what information is relayed to the people, and what information is withheld. Every single time they get in front of a TV camera or sit down behind a microphone, they betray the American people by intentionally filling their heads with rhetoric, half-truths and flat-out lies.
It’s unfortunate, but the one-sidedness of media networks like NPR serves as further proof that traditional journalism in America is dead. The practice of presenting both sides in a fair and balanced way has essentially been replaced by a political game of “catch me if you can” and “tear the other side down at all costs.” It has become more about silencing opposing viewpoints than about giving the American people the information they need to reach their own conclusions.
NPR’s biased coverage of the Charlottesville riots and their attempt to brand President Trump as a racist is only one example of how the entire network essentially exists to destroy anything that isn’t big government progressivism. Just days before the 2016 presidential election, for instance, former National Public Radio CEO Ken Stern did an interview with Vanity Fair, in which he bluntly stated that it was necessary to abandon objectivity in order to defeat Donald Trump. “Trump is an affront to American democracy and common decency, and if this is the price to pay for keeping him out of the White House, so be it,” Stern said, referring to major media organizations abandoning their objectivity. (Related: The mainstream media has abandoned all credibility following their biased coverage of James Comey and Donald Trump.)
For these reasons and dozens more, it is long past time to defund National Public Radio once and for all. The American taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize the spread of political propaganda and lies about the president of the United States. It is time to finally fight back and take a stand against the constant stream of anti-Americanism and progressive rhetoric being broadcasted across the airwaves.
==============================
I picked up on this about 2 years ago , before the election
I will listen to some of it's arts and entertainment shows
but any news or political shows I turn off faster
than lightening.
Yeah, the truth might blind you.
Loading...