WW3 Please SAY NO!

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by irv

In that other thread you said you didn't watch MSM for your news so where exactly do you get yours from?
Don't like Fox, FB nor Jimmy Dore by the sounds of it so where do you, exactly, get your news from? Just listen to other people who share the same views as yours and call it a day?

Are you actually watching or listening to any of the dastardly "MSM", or are you just watching FOX News try to convince you that's what they aren't.

BTW the acronym "MSM" repeated over and over again, is just a devious way of dismissing any semblance of a free press.

[irv]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Are you actually watching or listening to any of the dastardly "MSM", or are you just watching FOX News try to convince you that's what they aren't.

BTW the acronym "MSM" repeated over and over again, is just a devious way of dismissing any semblance of a free press.

No, I don't watch Fox news either even though they are, by far, imo, less biased and partisan than CNN or MSNBC.

CNN's and MSNBC's ratings have plummeted lately and I attribute that to people finally waking up and realizing they are just Liberal propaganda sites anymore that spread nothing but lies and fake news.
FOX news, for what's it's worth, is leading the charge now with MSM ratings, but many, like the vids I have posted, are turning to the likes of Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan, to name just a couple.

MSM, btw, is the acronym for Main Stream Media. I wouldn't necessarily lump all other Free Press entities in with them as they clearly aren't Main Stream, imo.

[irv]

LOL.

Maybe I should watch more MSM?
https://newtube.app/user/Fredyatelmstreet13/YkKq1pf

[sbfinley]

Personally I’ve always looked at attacks on “MSM” (whatever that means) as “what they report doesn’t align with what I believe”. CNN is obviously liberal leaning. Fox News is obviously conservative leaning. They both cook up factual news and season it with a heavy dose of opinion. 90% of press falls in the middle and outside of editorial sections - they are legitimately reporting the news as best and honestly as they can. But you guys feel free to argue whether the world press or YouTube comedians provide the best and most accurate coverage - while you do so remember bureaus of all major news sources in Russia (BBC, CNN, FoxNews, AP, Reuters, Al-Jazerra, etc) are closing up shop and removing their journalist and the two major Russian news channels remaining that aren’t state run signed off in the last 48 hours as the Duma (Russian Legislative Branch) passed laws punishing journalist who report “mis-information” with up to 15 years in prison.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by irv

No, I don't watch Fox news either even though they are, by far, imo, less biased and partisan than CNN or MSNBC.

If you don't watch Fox News, then how can you say they are less biased and partisan?

[Shoeless Moe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vlH1MS4FkM

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by irv

No, I don't watch Fox news either even though they are, by far, imo, less biased and partisan than CNN or MSNBC.

CNN's and MSNBC's ratings have plummeted lately and I attribute that to people finally waking up and realizing they are just Liberal propaganda sites anymore that spread nothing but lies and fake news.
FOX news, for what's it's worth, is leading the charge now with MSM ratings, but many, like the vids I have posted, are turning to the likes of Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan, to name just a couple.

MSM, btw, is the acronym for Main Stream Media. I wouldn't necessarily lump all other Free Press entities in with them as they clearly aren't Main Stream, imo.

Hey, just want to let you know your not alone out here. Most people don't realize that the news they watch is corporate media, not truly independent media. Regarding the entire Ukraine thing, most people are unaware of what the U.S. promised Russia about NATO after the latter agreed to the unification of Germany. Russia has warned the U.S. about Ukraine for years now and their warnings have been completely ignored despite the U.S. also being warned by many Russian scholars and former ambassadors to Russia.

To espouse this viewpoint doesn't mean that one is a Russian asset or that they support the war. It just means you're educated and know why the crisis is occurring. It's very hard to have rational conversations with people on the subject who don't know any of the background.

Btw, Dore is excellent and has on excellent and truly informed people like Glenn Greewald, Max Blumenthal, etc.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Hey, just want to let you know your not alone out here. Most people don't realize that the news they watch is corporate media, not truly independent media. Regarding the entire Ukraine thing, most people are unaware of what the U.S. promised Russia about NATO after the latter agreed to the unification of Germany. Russia has warned the U.S. about Ukraine for years now and their warnings have been completely ignored despite the U.S. also being warned by many Russian scholars and former ambassadors to Russia.

To espouse this viewpoint doesn't mean that one is a Russian asset or that they support the war. It just means you're educated and know why the crisis is occurring. It's very hard to have rational conversations with people on the subject who don't know any of the background.

Btw, Dore is excellent and has on excellent and truly informed people like Glenn Greewald, Max Blumenthal, etc.

Yeah, if you watched the Dore video that Irv linked to previously you'd think the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand any further to the east of Germany. If that's what you think, "it just means you're [not] educated."

"The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia"

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...prilkramer.pdf

"Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”"

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-fr...achev-says-no/

And an excellent article from a dastardly, not-to-be-trusted MSM

"The Historical Dispute Behind Russia’s Threat to Invade Ukraine"

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...invade-ukraine

There is one site that I found that seems to support your view:

"NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard"

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...early#_ednref1

And I like that site because of all the documentation it provides. However, after reading several of the documents the site links to to support the view that Gorbachev was promised NATO would not expand, I don't see how they come to that conclusion. I could find no such promise documented in the documents I looked at. So feel free to provide a link to a credible document that supports your "educated" view that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east. And no, Dore is not a credible source.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Yeah, if you watched the Dore video that Irv linked to previously you'd think the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand any further to the east of Germany. If that's what you think, "it just means you're [not] educated."

"The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia"

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...prilkramer.pdf

"Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”"

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-fr...achev-says-no/

And an excellent article from a dastardly, not-to-be-trusted MSM

"The Historical Dispute Behind Russia’s Threat to Invade Ukraine"

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...invade-ukraine

There is one site that I found that seems to support your view:

"NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard"

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...early#_ednref1

And I like that site because of all the documentation it provides. However, after reading several of the documents the site links to to support the view that Gorbachev was promised NATO would not expand, I don't see how they come to that conclusion. I could find no such promise documented in the documents I looked at. So feel free to provide a link to a credible document that supports your "educated" view that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east. And no, Dore is not a credible source.

You're first link says: "These assertions were sharply challenged at the time by other observers, including former U.S. policymakers who played a direct role in the German reunification process. George H. W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, and James A. Baker." Gee, I guess if those honest boy scouts say it, it must be true!

And you quote...The Brookings Institute, lol - that "humanitarian" think tank that was such a passionate advocate for the Iraq War.

The Yaffa article says: 'In the early nineties, Bill Clinton’s Administration was curious enough to look into the matter, commissioning an investigation on the question of deploying nato troops east of Germany. The takeaway was emphatic: Yeltsin was wrong. The agreement was limited to the role that nato could play in a united Germany, and had nothing to do with other countries in Eastern Europe. American diplomats should “pointedly remind the Russians of this basic fact,” the report said. Another opinion, this time from the German foreign ministry, ultimately agreed, but acknowledged that Russian claims contained a “political and psychological substance we had to take seriously.”'

"The takeaway was"...

The last article yes, does confirm my point of view.

The thing is, the U.S. had Russia down on the mat for years. They meddled in their elections and have also withdrawn from key treaties like the ABM, INF, and Open Skies Treaties. The U.S. participated in the coup that deposed Yanucovych and has turned a blind eye to the conflict in the Donbas. They've armed Ukraine as Putin has repeatedly made it clear that Ukraine and Georgia's inclusion into NATO was unacceptable. Even if there were no promise, which I believe there was, geopolitically it was damn stupid and arrogant for the U.S. to continue to taunt Russia and ignore the concerns of a fellow nuclear power. What the U.S. has done has encouraged Ukraine to poke the Russian bear, while knowing full well that it would never back it up militarily if anything happened. And that is exactly what is happening. Offensive weapons are currently being placed in Poland and Romania right now.

Scholars like Stephen Cohen, Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer and government officials and former diplomats to Russia have all discussed what I am talking about.

Btw, Dore is an excellent source as he has on journalists like Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald who also corroborate what I am saying here. Dore makes no pretense at being a scholar. But what he is an open, curious human being who is interested in seeking out truth. Pompously dismissing him is a mistake, in my opinion. As far as documents go, the consensus is that while nothing was signed, the promise was made regarding NATO. Clinton was also warned. In this article by FAIR (Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting) https://fair.org/home/calling-russia...-off-the-hook/ Clinton was warned that he was making a grave error:

'In 1997, dozens of foreign policy veterans (including former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and former CIA Director Stansfield Turner) sent a joint letter to then-President Bill Clinton calling "the current US-led effort to expand NATO...a policy error of historic proportions." They predicted:

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.'

All of this is not to say that Putin was justified in going to war. But the United States was negligent and arrogant in dismissing Putin's concerns. And that negligence is largely why we are in the situation we are in.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

You're first link says: "These assertions were sharply challenged at the time by other observers, including former U.S. policymakers who played a direct role in the German reunification process. George H. W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, and James A. Baker." Gee, I guess if those honest boy scouts say it, it must be true!

Hmm, way to prove your point by attacking people and not claims. Your personal bias does not prove anything.

Originally Posted by jgannon

And you quote...The Brookings Institute, lol - that "humanitarian" think tank that was such a passionate advocate for the Iraq War.

See above.

Originally Posted by jgannon

The Yaffa article says: 'In the early nineties, Bill Clinton’s Administration was curious enough to look into the matter, commissioning an investigation on the question of deploying nato troops east of Germany. The takeaway was emphatic: Yeltsin was wrong. The agreement was limited to the role that nato could play in a united Germany, and had nothing to do with other countries in Eastern Europe. American diplomats should “pointedly remind the Russians of this basic fact,” the report said. Another opinion, this time from the German foreign ministry, ultimately agreed, but acknowledged that Russian claims contained a “political and psychological substance we had to take seriously.”'

Please note the highlighted text. Confirms what you're saying, no? NO

Originally Posted by jgannon

The last article yes, does confirm my point of view.

The article doesn't confirm your point of view, it only reiterates it. If I say the earth is flat and link to a site that also says the earth is flat, would that confirm that the earth is flat? In the meantime, the article does contain links to 30 documents that support their/your view. Surely you can find something in one of those documents that backs up your assertion.

Originally Posted by jgannon

The thing is, the U.S. had Russia down on the mat for years. They meddled in their elections and have also withdrawn from key treaties like the ABM, INF, and Open Skies Treaties. The U.S. participated in the coup that deposed Yanucovych and has turned a blind eye to the conflict in the Donbas. They've armed Ukraine as Putin has repeatedly made it clear that Ukraine and Georgia's inclusion into NATO was unacceptable. Even if there were no promise, which I believe there was, geopolitically it was damn stupid and arrogant for the U.S. to continue to taunt Russia and ignore the concerns of a fellow nuclear power. What the U.S. has done has encouraged Ukraine to poke the Russian bear, while knowing full well that it would never back it up militarily if anything happened. And that is exactly what is happening. Offensive weapons are currently being placed in Poland and Romania right now.

Change of subject. Strawman argument. What does anything you wrote above have to do with NATO promising Russia that it would not expand eastward? Here, let me help you - NOTHING.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Scholars like Stephen Cohen, Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer and government officials and former diplomats to Russia have all discussed what I am talking about.

I guess from your statement earlier regarding the "honest boy scouts," it's okay for me to attack people, right?

Noam Chomsky:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/250chomskylies.pdf

How about a link where Stephen Cohen and John Mearsheimer prove that the US and NATO promised Russia not to expand eastward?

In the meantime, here's Mearsheimer:

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf

"As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S.
forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they
thought would keep a reunifed Germany pacifed. But they and their
Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed
that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand."

Doesn't sound like he believes Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Btw, Dore is an excellent source as he has on journalists like Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald who also corroborate what I am saying here. Dore makes no pretense at being a scholar. But what he is an open, curious human being who is interested in seeking out truth. Pompously dismissing him is a mistake, in my opinion. As far as documents go, the consensus is that while nothing was signed, the promise was made regarding NATO. Clinton was also warned. In this article by FAIR (Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting) https://fair.org/home/calling-russia...-off-the-hook/ Clinton was warned that he was making a grave error:

Again, has nothing to do with your assertion that Russia was promised no eastward expansion.

The bottom line is Russia claims they were promised that NATO would not expand eastward. You believe that claim. Why? All you can do is cite other people with the same belief and say that confirms your belief. What evidence has been provided to you to make you believe the claim? That's all I'm asking for. Unless I see credible evidence that Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO, I have no reason to believe it.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Hmm, way to prove your point by attacking people and not claims. Your personal bias does not prove anything.



See above.



Please note the highlighted text. Confirms what you're saying, no? NO



The article doesn't confirm your point of view, it only reiterates it. If I say the earth is flat and link to a site that also says the earth is flat, would that confirm that the earth is flat? In the meantime, the article does contain links to 30 documents that support their/your view. Surely you can find something in one of those documents that backs up your assertion.



Change of subject. Strawman argument. What does anything you wrote above have to do with NATO promising Russia that it would not expand eastward? Here, let me help you - NOTHING.



I guess from your statement earlier regarding the "honest boy scouts," it's okay for me to attack people, right?

Noam Chomsky:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/250chomskylies.pdf

How about a link where Stephen Cohen and John Mearsheimer prove that the US and NATO promised Russia not to expand eastward?

In the meantime, here's Mearsheimer:

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf

"As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S.
forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they
thought would keep a reunifed Germany pacifed. But they and their
Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed
that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand."

Doesn't sound like he believes Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO.




Again, has nothing to do with your assertion that Russia was promised no eastward expansion.

The bottom line is Russia claims they were promised that NATO would not expand eastward. You believe that claim. Why? All you can do is cite other people with the same belief and say that confirms your belief. What evidence has been provided to you to make you believe the claim? That's all I'm asking for. Unless I see credible evidence that Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO, I have no reason to believe it.

That's right, I do have criticisms of the people and the institutions you site to throw smoke at what Russian scholars and informed government officials assessed at the time regarding eastward expansion of NATO.

Yes, the fourth link was making the same argument I was making. I guess they were all making it up.

Don't have time to read Paul Bogdanor's tome. I'm guess it corroborates everything you're saying.

Regarding the Yaffa article and quote, takeaways aren't always accurate.

Nice nitpicking of Mearsheimer.

Regardless of all this, what people like Kennan and McNamara were saying in the 90s is coming to pass. NATO began expansion when Russia was in chaos, struggling politically and economically. Putin has been talking about Ukraine for years. The U.S. refusal to engage him and take his concerns seriously played a pivotal role in the present crisis. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that promises were or weren't made ultimately isn't the issue. What is central, and was of concern to scholars like Cohen and the others mentioned earlier is how Russia would react to the encroachment of NATO on it's borders. Their concerns apparently were well-founded. I guess if Putin had talked to you, he never would have been concerned about Ukraine joining NATO. Troops stationed in bordering countries whose sole purpose is to engage you militarily, and missiles pointed at you aren't dangerous if someone didn't promise you that they wouldn't put them there. And the U.S. was correct in ignoring Putin's concerns despite his repeated statements and warnings, because they had never made that promise.

Anyway, you can have the last word! I'm here for the baseball cards. Have a good one.

[irv]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Hey, just want to let you know your not alone out here. Most people don't realize that the news they watch is corporate media, not truly independent media. Regarding the entire Ukraine thing, most people are unaware of what the U.S. promised Russia about NATO after the latter agreed to the unification of Germany. Russia has warned the U.S. about Ukraine for years now and their warnings have been completely ignored despite the U.S. also being warned by many Russian scholars and former ambassadors to Russia.

To espouse this viewpoint doesn't mean that one is a Russian asset or that they support the war. It just means you're educated and know why the crisis is occurring. It's very hard to have rational conversations with people on the subject who don't know any of the background.

Btw, Dore is excellent and has on excellent and truly informed people like Glenn Greewald, Max Blumenthal, etc.

It's amazing what some people will believe just because their T.V. screens and their corrupt gov't tells them.
I assume many have forgotten, or believe it was for the greater good, when their very own country invades other countries?

I see you've met Mike.
He is likely just upset like John Kerry is about Putin's lack of buying into the global warming scam. Couldn't believe my eyes when I seen that. Just how stupid can these dingleberries get?
How dare Putin invade another country and not be concerned about climate change!!!

"“I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate,” Mr. Kerry added"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-invasion-di/

[AustinMike]

Just to add a little more context to what the Russian stooge and resident idiot Irv posted. Kerry made these remarks before Irv's favorite country, Russia, attacked Ukraine.

In an interview recorded on February 21 and aired on February 23, 2022 on BBC Arabic (U.K.), former Secretary of State John Kerry, who currently serves as U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, said that he is concerned about the Ukraine crisis because the war would have "massive emissions consequences" and because people's attention - and big countries' attention – would be diverted away from the climate crisis. He said he hopes that Putin will realize that most of northern Russia is on frozen land that is now thawing, putting Russia's infrastructure and people at risk. Expressing hope that diplomacy will succeed, and that Putin will help people "stay on track" regarding the climate, Kerry also said that he is concerned about the Ukrainian people, international law, and Russian attempts to change its boundaries by force.

In response, a State Department spokesperson provided comment to MEMRI: "Secretary Kerry strongly condemns the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russian military forces. On Monday prior to the attack, he was asked about the climate implications of a potential future conflict."

John Kerry: "I'm very concerned about, I'm concerned about Ukraine because of the people of Ukraine and because of the principles that are at risk, in terms of international law and trying to change boundaries of international law by force. I thought we lived in a world that had said no to that kind of activity. And I hope diplomacy will win.

"But massive emissions consequences to the war but equally importantly, you're going to lose people's focus, you're going to lose big country attention because they will be diverted and I think it could have a damaging impact. So, you know hopefully President Putin would realize that in the Northern part of his country, they used to live on 66% of the nation that was over frozen land.

"Now it's thawing, and his infrastructure is at risk. And the people of Russia are at risk. And so I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate."

Originally Posted by irv

It's amazing what I will believe just because the other voices in my head tells me.

Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by irv

He is likely just upset like John Kerry is about Putin's lack of buying into the global warming scam.

No, Kerry can say what ever he wants. I don't believe in climate change because of Kerry, I do because of the evidence. Go back and read that thread.

Originally Posted by irv

Couldn't believe my eyes when I seen that. Just how stupid can these dingleberries get?

Not anywhere near as stupid as the dingleberries floating around inside your head.

As always, great to have a stimulating conversation with you Irv.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

No, Kerry can say what ever he wants. I don't believe in climate change because of Kerry, I do because I am a GLOBAL WARMING cult member.

Fixed it for you.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Fixed it for you.

Why does believing in global warming make someone a cult member?

[AustinMike]

[QUOTE=AustinMike;2202819]

No, Kerry can say what ever he wants. I do because I see it as a way of punishing, weakening, and controlling the people that I hate, the ones that voted for The Orange Meanie.
[/QUOTE

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Fixed it for you.

Fixed for you.

Remember back to this thread in May of 2020?

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...+change&page=2

That was your claim back then, that I only thought climate change was real because I want to punish, weaken, and control "the people that I hate, the ones that voted for," in YOUR words, "The Orange Meanie."

[irv]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Just to add a little more context to what the Russian stooge and resident idiot Irv posted. Kerry made these remarks before Irv's favorite country, Russia, attacked Ukraine.

In an interview recorded on February 21 and aired on February 23, 2022 on BBC Arabic (U.K.), former Secretary of State John Kerry, who currently serves as U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, said that he is concerned about the Ukraine crisis because the war would have "massive emissions consequences" and because people's attention - and big countries' attention – would be diverted away from the climate crisis. He said he hopes that Putin will realize that most of northern Russia is on frozen land that is now thawing, putting Russia's infrastructure and people at risk. Expressing hope that diplomacy will succeed, and that Putin will help people "stay on track" regarding the climate, Kerry also said that he is concerned about the Ukrainian people, international law, and Russian attempts to change its boundaries by force.

In response, a State Department spokesperson provided comment to MEMRI: "Secretary Kerry strongly condemns the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russian military forces. On Monday prior to the attack, he was asked about the climate implications of a potential future conflict."

John Kerry: "I'm very concerned about, I'm concerned about Ukraine because of the people of Ukraine and because of the principles that are at risk, in terms of international law and trying to change boundaries of international law by force. I thought we lived in a world that had said no to that kind of activity. And I hope diplomacy will win.

"But massive emissions consequences to the war but equally importantly, you're going to lose people's focus, you're going to lose big country attention because they will be diverted and I think it could have a damaging impact. So, you know hopefully President Putin would realize that in the Northern part of his country, they used to live on 66% of the nation that was over frozen land.

"Now it's thawing, and his infrastructure is at risk. And the people of Russia are at risk. And so I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate."




Fixed it for you.



No, Kerry can say what ever he wants. I don't believe in climate change because of Kerry, I do because of the evidence. Go back and read that thread.



Not anywhere near as stupid as the dingleberries floating around inside your head.

As always, great to have a stimulating conversation with you Irv.

Greta’s activism convinced Germany and other European countries to phase out their nuclear plants and go renewables. Renewables are notoriously inefficient and Germany’s/Europe's carbon footprint actually expanded as nuke plants were decommissioned because of increased reliance on fossil fuels to supplement “green” energy.

Where’s that fossil fuel coming from? Russia, about 40% of it or higher.

Greta "appears" smart, she's fooled thousands, like you, but she was duped into activism by a campaign of fake and false misinformation just to pad the pockets of those promoting it.

I mean, she’s now supporting Ukraine. The country under attack by Russia. Russia, who has significantly benefited from her activism by raking in billions fueling their war machine. Like you, I don’t think she realizes what she’s done.

You should look up the Dunning Kruger effect, Mike. You're the textbook example of it.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by irv

You should look up the Dunning Kruger effect, Mike. You're the textbook example of it.

Project much?

As usual, another stimulating conversation with the "pot calling the kettle black" king.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by irv

It's amazing what some people will believe just because their T.V. screens and their corrupt gov't tells them.
I assume many have forgotten, or believe it was for the greater good, when their very own country invades other countries?

I see you've met Mike.
He is likely just upset like John Kerry is about Putin's lack of buying into the global warming scam. Couldn't believe my eyes when I seen that. Just how stupid can these dingleberries get?
How dare Putin invade another country and not be concerned about climate change!!!

"“I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate,” Mr. Kerry added"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-invasion-di/

Hey yeah. While some of it's comical, the worst part about it is the whole idea that if you try to understand a different point of view you're called a Russian sympathizer or stooge. And of course, as I know you know, it's not just the right wing. The Dems (who I don't think you wouldn't consider to be left, as I don't) were falsely claiming over the last 5 years that Trump was a Putin puppet, when he defied them on a number of things, and have been even more guilty of it.

Interesting to see how this whole thing is going to play out. A lot of armchair warriors are calling for no-fly zones and more sanctions. The sooner a diplomatic solution to this is found the better.

Dos vidanya!

[KMayUSA6060]

May I ask what is so harmful about questioning MSM/news in general?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

May I ask what is so harmful about questioning MSM/news in general?

You'll be called a Russian stooge, or an anti-vaxxer, etc.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

May I ask what is so harmful about questioning MSM/news in general?

Nothing. The entire basis of human advancement has come from questioning things.

It’s when someone question something, then ignores the it’s verifiable by things like facts, numbers, maths, primary sources, physically verifiable evidence and decides that is “fake” “mis-information” or something else they had someone read to them in coloring book I just because sigh for devolution of humanity.

That’s me though. Could be an outlier or just cynical. Either way I just wish I didn’t see dead kids daily being pulled out cluster bombed apartment buildings across Ukraine or anywhere else for that matter.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

May I ask what is so harmful about questioning MSM/news in general?

For me, personally, nothing! Everything I read I try to weigh with logic and take with a grain of salt. For me, personally, though, you* lose me when you start saying things like "open your eyes" and "they're all lying to you" and "truth!!" and then you post clips from InfoWars. InfoWars?? The Truth??? Sure...

Ken

PS: You* is a generic somebody/you, not Kyle/you.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

May I ask what is so harmful about questioning MSM/news in general?

There is absolutely nothing wrong or harmful about questioning MSM/news in general. In fact, I would encourage it.

It's only when you decide that everything MSM says is a lie and everything you read on Facebook or see on YouTube is the Truth that is harmful.

Then you get in a situation where you claim the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east, get called on it, can't provide any proof, and then say it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. You become a stooge.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Hey yeah. While some of it's comical, the worst part about it is the whole idea that if you try to understand a different point of view you're called a Russian sympathizer or stooge. And of course, as I know you know, it's not just the right wing. The Dems (who I don't think you wouldn't consider to be left, as I don't) were falsely claiming over the last 5 years that Trump was a Putin puppet, when he defied them on a number of things, and have been even more guilty of it.

Interesting to see how this whole thing is going to play out. A lot of armchair warriors are calling for no-fly zones and more sanctions. The sooner a diplomatic solution to this is found the better.

Dos vidanya!

No, if you totally buy into a claim without any evidence supporting that claim and then you say it doesn't matter whether the claim is true or not, then you are a stooge. Since you are so gung-ho for the Russian claim without evidence and it doesn't really matter whether the claim is true or not, you are a Russian stooge.