Another Russia themed Hoax...

[Neanderthaland]

If you dedicated even a fraction of effort you put into acting incredulous over this into actually telling us who is actually advocating war, we could all save a lot of time.

Should we debate evolution and gravity to? Don’t fucking respond if I exhaust you.

Oh you're not exhausting me. I'm just pointing out how silly and evasive you're being.

When someone puts this much work into not answering a question, it makes me think they don't have a good answer.

[Nilokeras]

Quote taken from a telegram sent by the OP and posted here because I don't debate by telegram and the OP seems to have a predilection to creating spicy threads and scampering off without engaging in them:

Gretings,
Curious about this statement "His political affiliation is not particularly interesting since he's a grifter and ladder climber. The Stephen Crowder of the 'progressives"

Jimmy Dore is a grifter? That's interesting. I am of course right-wing but whereas I disagree with Dore on a lot, I do like him for remaining remarkably consistent throughout the past few decades.

Don't you think MSNBC and TYT are far worse grifters?

To which the answer is that MSNBC and TYT are that even worse category of grifters than Dore: they're corporations. That much was proven when TYT launched a union busting drive on its own employees. Uygur is a hypocrite for doing it of course but it's not in anyway surprising from a business perspective. Capital's going to do what capital does, after all. Especially when it comes to laundering dodgy intelligence for security state interests and maintaining the walled garden of access they enjoy.

[The Sovereign Realist State]

Quote taken from a telegram sent by the OP and posted here because I don't debate by telegram and the OP seems to have a predilection to creating spicy threads and scampering off without engaging in them

I think this reply should tell you all you need to know about the scruples of some of these people.

Not only are they too scared to have a direct conversation, but they don't even have the intellectual honesty to ask permission to repost private TGs on the Forum.
absolutely disgraceful

p.s.: i often do not engage - as was the case here - because i did not see anyone either questioning the article or the arguments of the links I added.

rather the mob just went ad hominem and I will not waste my time with fallacies. On that point, if I am just "agitprop", why would YOU want to debate at all? You already defamed me as a dishonest broker so why be so concerned that I do not engage?

one more evidence that it is impossible to engage the leftist mob in good-faith

[The Sovereign Realist State]

To which the answer is that MSNBC and TYT are that even worse category of grifters than Dore: they're corporations. That much was proven when TYT launched a union busting drive on its own employees. Uygur is a hypocrite for doing it of course but it's not in anyway surprising from a business perspective. Capital's going to do what capital does, after all. Especially when it comes to laundering dodgy intelligence for security state interests and maintaining the walled garden of access they enjoy.

Everyone is a grifter I guess...

Just out of curiosity: Who isn't?

[Dakini]

Quote taken from a telegram sent by the OP and posted here because I don't debate by telegram and the OP seems to have a predilection to creating spicy threads and scampering off without engaging in them

I think this reply should tell you all you need to know about the scruples of some of these people.

Not only are they too scared to have a direct conversation, but they don't even have the intellectual honesty to ask permission to repost private TGs on the Forum.
absolutely disgraceful

I don't debate by TG either. I wouldn't share a TG in public, but I would just ignore it because carrying a debate into TGs is stupid.

[Mannixa Prime]

Should we debate evolution and gravity to? Don’t fucking respond if I exhaust you.

Oh you're not exhausting me. I'm just pointing out how silly and evasive you're being.

When someone puts this much work into not answering a question, it makes me think they don't have a good answer.

If you don’t realize that the entire US political establishment (both parties and corporate elites) is seeking conflict with Russia what’s the point? You are either a neoliberal or simply ignorant. Not my goal to educate people on basic concepts.

[The Sovereign Realist State]

When someone puts this much work into not answering a question, it makes me think they don't have a good answer.

I think Mannixa is referring to the exorbitant amount of mccarthyte Russophobia in the MSM for the past few years as well as the overwhelming consensus of said media that the US simply must do smth, whenever a foreign conflict is covered.

If having a massive military establishment around the globe and a domestic propaganda apparatus to justify it unconditionally, is not advocating for WW3, then you have to admit it comes pretty close...

[Neanderthaland]

Oh you're not exhausting me. I'm just pointing out how silly and evasive you're being.

When someone puts this much work into not answering a question, it makes me think they don't have a good answer.

If you don’t realize that the entire US political establishment (both parties and corporate elites) is seeking conflict with Russia what’s the point? You are either a neoliberal or simply ignorant. Not my goal to educate people on basic concepts.

If it's the entire US political establishment, it shouldn't be hard to dig up some evidence should it?

[The Sovereign Realist State]

I don't debate by TG either. I wouldn't share a TG in public, but I would just ignore it because carrying a debate into TGs is stupid.

I disagree. Not only do I find that people have a different attitude when they are not arguing in public, but a direct debate allows for arguments to be exchanged on tangents which would be off topic in the Forum

[The Sovereign Realist State]

If it's the entire US political establishment, it shouldn't be hard to dig up some evidence should it?

For the ones living under a rock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPpyn3QwSj0

[Mannixa Prime]

If you don’t realize that the entire US political establishment (both parties and corporate elites) is seeking conflict with Russia what’s the point? You are either a neoliberal or simply ignorant. Not my goal to educate people on basic concepts.

If it's the entire US political establishment, it shouldn't be hard to dig up some evidence should it?

Your just trolling at this point and frankly it’s lame

[Neanderthaland]

If it's the entire US political establishment, it shouldn't be hard to dig up some evidence should it?

For the ones living under a rock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPpyn3QwSj0

Rachel Maddow is the entire US political establishment now?

Also, not a lot of advocating for war in that clip. Mostly just her saying "Russia."

[Neanderthaland]

If it's the entire US political establishment, it shouldn't be hard to dig up some evidence should it?

Your just trolling at this point and frankly it’s lame

You compared this to Gravity or Evolution. If you questioned those, I could give you links demonstrating either of them. I find it easy to argue these topics, because I know a lot about them. I would not just repeatedly insist that "I'm right, and it's soooo obvious I'm right." That's more like what a Creationist or Flat Earther would do.

Now you're probably are too young to remember, but I was around for the early 2000s when the Bush Administration was advocating for war with Iraq. I know what advocating for war looks like. I haven't seen anything like that with Russia. Both parties are quick to point fingers at Russia, but not to pick a fight. They just find Russia a convenient scapegoat.

[Reploid Productions]

I agree, the Obama administration had the right idea of embargoing their economy into the group until they behaved. No shots fired, and took away Poutine's ability to pay rent on his country.

Given the other spelling mishaps in this post, I'm assuming that "Poutine" was probably an auto-correct fail rather than intentional trolling by way of political nicknaming. But please proofread your content before hitting "Submit" to catch those.

[The Sovereign Realist State]

Rachel Maddow is the entire US political establishment now?

She is an apt example of the collective

Also, not a lot of advocating for war in that clip. Mostly just her saying "Russia."

No, you're right, RNC, DNC and the MSM positively loooove Russia and Putin.........

I'm sure you'd have no difficulty finding examples of that attitude...

[Neanderthaland]

Rachel Maddow is the entire US political establishment now?

She is an apt example of the collective

Also, not a lot of advocating for war in that clip. Mostly just her saying "Russia."

No, you're right, RNC, DNC and the MSM positively loooove Russia and Putin.........

I'm sure you'd have no difficulty finding examples of that attitude...

And again, not liking someone is very different from advocating World War 3.

[The Sovereign Realist State]

And again, not liking someone is very different from advocating World War 3.

No but since you mentioned Iraq, you would have to agree that dehumanising and scapegoating does come before the war...

...even if in this case I'm sure that what the defence industry sponsored media want is simply to legitimise more 'colour revolutions' and not actual outright direct conventional military engagement

[Neanderthaland]

And again, not liking someone is very different from advocating World War 3.

No but since you mentioned Iraq, you would have to agree that dehumanising and scapegoating does come before the war...

Rachel Maddow dehumanizing the Russians now? Surely you'll have some evidence of that.

Look: the US today is not significantly more hostile to Russia than it has been over the bulk of the last 100 years. If we really wanted to fight a war with Russia, we would have by now.

...even if in this case I'm sure that what the defence industry sponsored media want is simply to legitimise more 'colour revolutions' and not actual outright direct conventional military engagement

Surely the resiliently of the Putin regime over the last 20 years is proof that this is not the case.

It's almost as if the American defense agencies think that destabilizing a major nuclear power might not be a good idea...

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh you're not exhausting me. I'm just pointing out how silly and evasive you're being.

When someone puts this much work into not answering a question, it makes me think they don't have a good answer.

If you don’t realize that the entire US political establishment (both parties and corporate elites) is seeking conflict with Russia what’s the point? You are either a neoliberal or simply ignorant. Not my goal to educate people on basic concepts.

Dude, if you're going to pull things from your ass, wipe them off first.

[The Sovereign Realist State]

Rachel Maddow dehumanizing the Russians now? Surely you'll have some evidence of that.

Not Russians, but the Russian government. It is a policy that always comes before conflict: have you noticed that all enemy leaders suddenly become 'crazy' or 'killers' or irrational in some form? why can't we ever have rational enemies?...

Look: the US today is not significantly more hostile to Russia than it has been over the bulk of the last 100 years.

What?

The US was not hostile to Russia at all until the russian revolution and then mostly during the Cold War, sine during WW2, Russia was actually an ally.

Following 1989 Russia was actually on good terms with the US but it all went sour with NATO's expansion and the colour revolutions.

So, no, you're wrong, the US is exceedingly more hostile today that it has been for the past 30 years.

If we really wanted to fight a war with Russia, we would have by now.

You have, by proxy: in Georgia, Syria and Ukraine. The conflicts were initiated by the West/US. Russia just reacted to events.

Surely the resiliently of the Putin regime over the last 20 years is proof that this is not the case.

Some might make the case that America's hostility has fed Putin's popularity...

It's almost as if the American defense agencies think that destabilizing a major nuclear power might not be a good idea...

If that were true the US would not be abandoning all the arms treaties nor destabilising every country in Russia's periphery...

[Shofercia]

And here we have a prime example of "your side sucks too!" a brilliant rebuttal all around.

What 'side' do you think I'm criticizing here?

Also, when did Jimmy Dore become a right winger?

His political affiliation is not particularly interesting since he's a grifter and ladder climber. The Stephen Crowder of the 'progressives'.

I've been watching his show, definitely doesn't seem like a grifter. As for being a ladder climber, what YouTuber isn't?

It looks like the Russian trolls have found their way to NS as well;

Even as a socialist who is largely disgusted with the US's actions on the international stage (namely our overthrowing democratically-elected governments that we deemed to be "too far to the left" in the past), anyone who believes that letting Russia or China annex land to their hearts' content or letting them become the new hegemonic powers (because, be real, that is what will happen if the US rescinds its overseas influence) will be better for basic human freedoms and rights, much less worker ownership of the economy,

is lying to themselves.

Get outta here with that "Russia is just misunderstood or being used as a boogeyman, therefore the US should let it do what it wants" crap;

Russia is an expansionist fascist dictatorship and China is an expansionist, ultra-capitalist Orwellian surveillance state. If you truly think nations with those values will somehow foster peace, stability, prosperity for anyone but their oligarchs, or extensions of human freedom, then I don't know what to do in order to help your mental condition.

I've yet to see an explanation of how Russia/China would take over the World if the US stops being the World's policeman, but wanting the US to continue to police the world, while supporting socialism in the US which leads to even more taxes on the middle class, will simply drive the productive members of society elsewhere.

Russia didn't even bother absorbing Ukraine at this point, what World Conquest are you talking about? This whole "if the US won't be World Force Police someone else will" argument is sounding more and more lulzy.

Of course the forum's resident Putin apologist would try to paint legitimate concerns about Russian imperialism as 'paranoia-fueled American nationalism'. And of course the forum's resident Putin apologist would also blatantly deny Russia's annexation of Crimea and the entire Donbas war.

I've never denied Russia's Reclamation of Crimea, and the Crimeans are supporting it. I've also offered to hold a Referendum in Ukraine, but all those who scream about Russia not being a democracy suddenly fall silent when democratic results in neighboring countries benefit Russia. I guess democracy's quite subjective, eh? And of course pointing this out makes me a "Putin Apologist" - now Biden's in power, time for Liberals to embrace invasions and civil wars once again, for democracy and human rights and weddings being bombed, and humanitarian catastrophes being created...

[Neanderthaland]

Rachel Maddow dehumanizing the Russians now? Surely you'll have some evidence of that.

Not Russians, but the Russian government. It is a policy that always comes before conflict: have you noticed that all enemy leaders suddenly become 'crazy' or 'killers' or irrational in some form? why can't we ever have rational enemies?...

"Dehumanizing" a government isn't a real thing.

I'm sure there are many critiques that have been leveled at the Russians, but I don't think them being "irrational" is a particularly prevalent one. And I sort of wonder where the hell you got that idea. People think Putin is an evil, authoritarian strongman. Not crazy.

Look: the US today is not significantly more hostile to Russia than it has been over the bulk of the last 100 years.

What?

The US was not hostile to Russia at all until the russian revolution and then mostly during the Cold War, sine during WW2, Russia was actually an ally.

You realize the Russian revolution was almost exactly 100 years ago, right? WW2 constitutes a 4 year gap in otherwise hostile relations. There was another one in the early 90s. Other than that, there's been a very consistent trend of adversarial relations.

Following 1989 Russia was actually on good terms with the US but it all went sour with NATO's expansion and the colour revolutions.

So, no, you're wrong, the US is exceedingly more hostile today that it has been for the past 30 years.

No. Not really. I remember 2001 when Bush was all gung-ho about putting missile defense on Russia's borders. That was significantly more hostile than anything since.

If we really wanted to fight a war with Russia, we would have by now.

You have, by proxy: in Georgia, Syria and Ukraine. The conflicts were initiated by the West/US. Russia just reacted to events.

Ha! Yeah. The US forced them to annex Crimea. Sure thing.

Surely the resiliently of the Putin regime over the last 20 years is proof that this is not the case.

Some might make the case that America's hostility has fed Putin's popularity...

I'm very sure Putin has made that case.

It's almost as if the American defense agencies think that destabilizing a major nuclear power might not be a good idea...

If that were true the US would not be abandoning all the arms treaties nor destabilising every country in Russia's periphery...

I'm guessing that being invaded by the Russians has destabilized them more than the US.

Nice try! You did a good job except for everything you said was wrong.

[Shofercia]

No but since you mentioned Iraq, you would have to agree that dehumanising and scapegoating does come before the war...

Rachel Maddow dehumanizing the Russians now? Surely you'll have some evidence of that.

Look: the US today is not significantly more hostile to Russia than it has been over the bulk of the last 100 years. If we really wanted to fight a war with Russia, we would have by now.

...even if in this case I'm sure that what the defence industry sponsored media want is simply to legitimise more 'colour revolutions' and not actual outright direct conventional military engagement

Surely the resiliently of the Putin regime over the last 20 years is proof that this is not the case.

It's almost as if the American defense agencies think that destabilizing a major nuclear power might not be a good idea...

According to the TYT, most Russians get together every forty years and ethnically cleanse someone. Eventually they took down the video, but I'd say that's dehumanization, wouldn't you? In yet another video they call men bitchslapping each other "the most Russian sport ever" even though the sport doesn't even make the top 100 in Russia.

And as far as the US destabilizing Russia, certain US entities had no issues helping Yetlsin rig the 1996 elections, in what the New York Times called "a step toward democracy" three years after Yeltsin fired on Parliament with tank. Whatever happened to democracy cries in the 1990s?

Quote taken from a telegram sent by the OP and posted here because I don't debate by telegram and the OP seems to have a predilection to creating spicy threads and scampering off without engaging in them

I think this reply should tell you all you need to know about the scruples of some of these people.

Not only are they too scared to have a direct conversation, but they don't even have the intellectual honesty to ask permission to repost private TGs on the Forum.
absolutely disgraceful

p.s.: i often do not engage - as was the case here - because i did not see anyone either questioning the article or the arguments of the links I added.

rather the mob just went ad hominem and I will not waste my time with fallacies. On that point, if I am just "agitprop", why would YOU want to debate at all? You already defamed me as a dishonest broker so why be so concerned that I do not engage?

one more evidence that it is impossible to engage the leftist mob in good-faith

When it comes to Russia, it's hard engaging most debaters. Look at this thread, no one effectively challenged the truth, but completely unrelated talking points quickly came up.

[Neanderthaland]

Rachel Maddow dehumanizing the Russians now? Surely you'll have some evidence of that.

Look: the US today is not significantly more hostile to Russia than it has been over the bulk of the last 100 years. If we really wanted to fight a war with Russia, we would have by now.


Surely the resiliently of the Putin regime over the last 20 years is proof that this is not the case.

It's almost as if the American defense agencies think that destabilizing a major nuclear power might not be a good idea...

According to the TYT, most Russians get together every forty years and ethnically cleanse someone. Eventually they took down the video, but I'd say that's dehumanization, wouldn't you? In yet another video they call men bitchslapping each other "the most Russian sport ever" even though the sport doesn't even make the top 100 in Russia.

And as far as the US destabilizing Russia, certain US entities had no issues helping Yetlsin rig the 1996 elections, in what the New York Times called "a step toward democracy" three years after Yeltsin fired on Parliament with tank. Whatever happened to democracy cries in the 1990s?

Does anyone even watch TYT anymore?

Anyway, yeah. The US is no saint. But they're not actively gunning to start WW3, or to destabilize the Russian government. In fact, the thing you just pointed out was a good example of the US being more interested in maintaining a stable Russian government then they were in upholding their own values.

[Shofercia]

According to the TYT, most Russians get together every forty years and ethnically cleanse someone. Eventually they took down the video, but I'd say that's dehumanization, wouldn't you? In yet another video they call men bitchslapping each other "the most Russian sport ever" even though the sport doesn't even make the top 100 in Russia.

And as far as the US destabilizing Russia, certain US entities had no issues helping Yetlsin rig the 1996 elections, in what the New York Times called "a step toward democracy" three years after Yeltsin fired on Parliament with tank. Whatever happened to democracy cries in the 1990s?

Does anyone even watch TYT anymore?

Anyway, yeah. The US is no saint. But they're not actively gunning to start WW3, or to destabilize the Russian government. In fact, the thing you just pointed out was a good example of the US being more interested in maintaining a stable Russian government then they were in upholding their own values.

The Yeltsin Administration was destabilizing Russia. In 1993 they had tanks shooting at a democratically elected Parliament. In 1996 there was massive election rigging. In 1998 a massive economic crash, primarily due to the actions of the Yeltsin Administration and their cohorts. By 1999, Yeltsin's laissez-faire approach to the Caucasus caused Dagestan to be invaded by Chechnya and the Russian Armed Forces were in full revolt, as was evident by the Pristina Incident. When Yeltsin ordered withdrawal, he was told to "fuck off" but in much stronger language. My point's that supporting the Yeltsin Administration was destabilizing Russia, a nuclear power.

As for TYT, judging by Cenk's ill-fated Congressional run, that produced much lolcowdom and his spat with Bernie Sanders, (Bernie was 100% correct,) probably not.