Top Putin aide named by MH17 airliner investigators

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - An international investigation into the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 on Thursday released a series of phone intercepts, including one between a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin and pro-Russian rebels accused in the crash.

Calls between officials in Moscow and pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine mostly took place via secure telephones provided by the Russian security service, and intensified ahead of the disaster in the first half of July 2014, the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) said.

"The indications for close ties between leaders of the DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic) and Russian government officials raise questions about their possible involvement in the deployment of the (missile), which brought down flight MH17 on 17 July 2014," the JIT said.

MH17 was shot out of the sky on July 17, 2014, over territory held by pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine as it flew from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. All 298 on board died.

The Dutch-led team said the intercepts showed two leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), who were charged with murder in June, had been in contact with Vladislav Surkov, a senior Putin aide, and Sergey Aksyonov, a Russian-appointed leader in Russian-annexed Crimea.

...

In a conversation on July 3, 2014, prosecutors said Surkov indicated reinforcements would be coming from Russia: "On Saturday they are already departing for the south to be combat ready."

There were calls between rebel forces and authorities in Moscow "on a daily basis to discuss administrative, financial and military matters in the DPR". The JIT released a series of phone numbers, asking witnesses to help identify the callers.

Investigators have previously found that the missile that hit the airplane originated from Russia's Kursk military base, not far from the Ukrainian border. In June, the JIT charged three Russians and a Ukrainian with 298 murders.
https://news.yahoo.com/mh17-investig...131250317.html

“But but - can’t we be friends with Russia?”

Yeah... let's broker deals to sell them 20% of our Uranium.

errrr… wait.

Communism made a resurgence during the previous administration as indicated by the strengthening of both Russia and China. Communism is intrinsically evil. This "revelation" is not surprising to anyone.

Russia hasn't been Communist for 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Yeah... let's broker deals to sell them 20% of our Uranium.

errrr… wait.

Communism made a resurgence during the previous administration as indicated by the strengthening of both Russia and China. Communism is intrinsically evil. This "revelation" is not surprising to anyone.

---

you think putin is a communist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Yeah... let's broker deals to sell them 20% of our Uranium.

errrr… wait.

Communism made a resurgence during the previous administration as indicated by the strengthening of both Russia and China. Communism is intrinsically evil. This "revelation" is not surprising to anyone.

---

Russia is "communist" :lmao

Phenomanul be like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAES1HUIVkE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Russia hasn't been Communist for 20 years.

---

And yet Russia has a "dictator"-like leader, and China has a true "dictator".

The point being that everybody knows that Russia is not on the "up and up". They are an evil administration even if the term Communist is not officially in their title. They operate in very similar ways, with an iron rod of absolute power.

Sometimes you all are so dense, your petty rebuttals miss the point altogether.

Let me simplify even if it means I have to condescend.

Putin's regime is evil. Democrats sold 20% of America's Uranium to Putin's Russia. No leftist-leaning politician in the US challenged the Obama administration's Russia policy. They were lauded for mending bridges, for avoiding "Reganism". At the conclusion of the 2016 US Presidential Election however, the narrative necessitated that Russia be viewed as evil anew. That's why it's absurd to act surprised that MH17 was deliberately shot down. They've always been the same Russia. Same threat in different packaging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

And yet Russia has a "dictator"-like leader, and China has a true "dictator".

The point being that everybody knows that Russia is not on the "up and up". They are an evil administration even if the term Communist is not officially in their title. They operate in very similar ways, with an iron rod of absolute power.

Sometimes you all are so dense, your petty rebuttals miss the point altogether.

Let me simplify even if it means I have to condescend.

Putin's regime is evil. Democrats sold 20% of America's Uranium to Putin's Russia. No leftist-leaning politician in the US challenged the Obama administration's Russia policy. They were lauded for mending bridges, for avoiding "Reganism". At the conclusion of the 2016 US Presidential Election however, the narrative necessitated that Russia be viewed as evil anew. That's why it's absurd to act surprised that MH17 was deliberately shot down. They've always been the same Russia. Same threat in different packaging.

---

You keep saying Democrats sold 20% of US uranium to Russia.

Exactly how do you think that works?

I'm pretty sure you have no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

And yet Russia has a "dictator"-like leader, and China has a true "dictator".

The point being that everybody knows that Russia is not on the "up and up". They are an evil administration even if the term Communist is not officially in their title. They operate in very similar ways, with an iron rod of absolute power.

Sometimes you all are so dense, your petty rebuttals miss the point altogether.

Let me simplify even if it means I have to condescend.

Putin's regime is evil. Democrats sold 20% of America's Uranium to Putin's Russia. No leftist-leaning politician in the US challenged the Obama administration's Russia policy. They were lauded for mending bridges, for avoiding "Reganism". At the conclusion of the 2016 US Presidential Election however, the narrative necessitated that Russia be viewed as evil anew. That's why it's absurd to act surprised that MH17 was deliberately shot down. They've always been the same Russia. Same threat in different packaging.

---

your rebuttal point was almost exclusively about communism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Yeah... let's broker deals to sell them 20% of our Uranium.

errrr… wait.

Communism made a resurgence during the previous administration as indicated by the strengthening of both Russia and China. Communism is intrinsically evil. This "revelation" is not surprising to anyone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

your rebuttal point was almost exclusively about communism

---

Not necessarily. I'm connecting two points. That Putin's government is evil and that the revelation that his administration is connected to a crime shouldn't be surprising to ANYONE. The deliberate downing of a passenger plane only reveals that they honestly don't care about ethics. The connecting point was that the last US administration let them build up massive power without so much as a deterrent. They were enablers, going so far as to do the unthinkable - sell them rights to our Uranium, knowingly compromising America's national security interests in the process. The fact that I mentioned communism was merely an afterthought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Not necessarily. I'm connecting two points. That Putin's government is evil and that the revelation that his administration is connected to a crime shouldn't be surprising to ANYONE. The deliberate downing of a passenger plane only reveals that they honestly don't care about ethics. The connecting point was that the last US administration let them build up massive power without so much as a deterrent. They were enablers, going so far as to do the unthinkable - sell them rights to our Uranium, knowingly compromising America's national security interests in the process. The fact that I mentioned communism was merely an afterthought.

---

you still havent explained the uranium stuff at all, despite being asked about it more than once

Commie

https://twitter.com/llerer/status/11...892538373?s=19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Phenomanul be like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAES1HUIVkE

---

You should ask him about demons in Mexico tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurs Homer

“But but - can’t we be friends with Russia?”

---

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cropped%29.jpg

Symbolic reset
On 6 March 2009 in Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red button with the English word "reset" and the Roman alphabet transliteration of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet word перегрузка ("peregruzka".) It was intended that this would be the Russian word for "reset" but actually was the word for "overload".[1] (The correct translation would be перезагрузка ["perezagruzka"].)

:lol way to kick your own ass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cropped%29.jpg

Symbolic reset
On 6 March 2009 in Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red button with the English word "reset" and the Roman alphabet transliteration of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet word перегрузка ("peregruzka".) It was intended that this would be the Russian word for "reset" but actually was the word for "overload".[1] (The correct translation would be перезагрузка ["perezagruzka"].)

:lol way to kick your own ass

---

Russia invaded Crimea years after the USA tried to “reset” relations dumbshit

essentially destroying the goodwill they might have earned


your hero actually cheers russian aggression

By sending them actual weapons with which to defend themselves? The last administration sent them blankets. :tu

He's got a point, Spurs Homer.

Obama overruled Biden and the foreign service consensus by not sending Javelin missiles to Ukraine. He didn't want to escalate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

By sending them actual weapons with which to defend themselves? The last administration sent them blankets. :tu

---

#1) ukraine had to STOP COOPERATING with the Mueller investigation in order to get those weapons...

and

#2) there was a caveat - ukraine could not use those weapons against - wait for it -
...here it comes....


yup - RUSSIA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Communism made a resurgence during the previous administration as indicated by the strengthening of both Russia and China. Communism is intrinsically evil.

---

Goddamn, you Bible humpers are all FUCKING STUPID

Godless communism? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

He's got a point, Spurs Homer.

Obama overruled Biden and the foreign service consensus by not sending Javelin missiles to Ukraine. He didn't want to escalate.

---

aside from those two reasons stated right after your post...

#3 - Ukraine had to allow Konstantin Kilimnik - who was wanted by the Mueller investigators - to slip across the border into -
wait for it.... you guessed it - RUSSIA!


That was revealed in one of the hearing transcripts - so we might get some more info on that in the public hearings...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurs Homer

#1) ukraine had to STOP COOPERATING with the Mueller investigation in order to get those weapons...

and

#2) there was a caveat - ukraine could not use those weapons against - wait for it -
...here it comes....


yup - RUSSIA

---

See... now you're just making stuff up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

See... now you're just making stuff up.

---

its in one of the hearing transcripts -

stay tuned for more shit to be unearthed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

See... now you're just making stuff up.

---

make this up;


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/w...-missiles.html

lol


https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...le-sale-040915

Politico... err Po-leftist-co yeah... I've long banned them from being a legit source about anything.

you've spent your whole life on the indoctrination train.

Russia Backs Haftar Exactly Like Trump & US Says Russia "Exploiting The Conflict" #DoubleStandard
https://youtu.be/L2xpcteTxQs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

you've spent your whole life on the indoctrination train.

---

The irony being that you don't realize everyone is. Your own biases clearly stem from indoctrinated ideology of your own.

The danger here is your added supposition that your own ideology is superior and therefore mine must be silenced and eradicated. These are the reasons why on every issue that surfaces the LEFT clearly sides with a position in which free expression of thought and religious freedom must be squashed. And like sheeple you and your leftist tools perpetuate that sentiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

The irony being that you don't realize everyone is. Your own biases clearly stem from indoctrinated ideology of your own.

The danger here is your added supposition that your own ideology is superior and therefore mine must be silenced and eradicated. These are the reasons why on every issue that surfaces the LEFT clearly sides with a position in which free expression of thought and religious freedom must be squashed. And like sheeple you and your leftist tools perpetuate that sentiment.

---

ah, the Trash's both sides-ism. Even ALL sides are indoctrinated, esp the ones who don't share YOUR indoctrination!

Goddamn, you're fucking stupid.

"religious freedom"? :lol

"Freedom" to express your Christ-loving HATE by persecuting "Biblically" non-Christians, non-hetero-sexual people, non-whites, non-males.

By the way, a "New York Jew" judge just blocked your Nazi-styled "conscience" rule

https://rewire.news/article/2019/11/...nscience-rule/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

ah, the Trash's both sides-ism. Even ALL sides are indoctrinated, esp the ones who don't share YOUR indoctrination!

Goddamn, you're fucking stupid.

"religious freedom"? :lol

"Freedom" to express your Christ-loving HATE by persecuting "Biblically" non-Christians, non-hetero-sexual people, non-whites, non-males.

By the way, a "New York Jew" judge just blocked your Nazi-styled "conscience" rule

https://rewire.news/article/2019/11/...nscience-rule/

---

You're the forum crazy. So yeah. Nothing you say has any intrinsic merit.

The primary argument clearly went over your head. As you were instantly triggered by the word "religious".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

You're the forum crazy. So yeah. Nothing you say has any intrinsic merit.

The primary argument clearly went over your head. As you were instantly triggered by the word "religious".

---

:lol sez the self-congratulating, preening religious fool

Your "primary argument" has been destroyed.

Now, go pray to Christ to guide you in your hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Politico... err Po-leftist-co yeah... I've long banned them from being a legit source about anything.

---

What are your legit sources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Politico... err Po-leftist-co yeah... I've long banned them from being a legit source about anything.

---

sick burn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

What are your legit sources?

---

Definitely not you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Definitely not you.

---

I never claimed to be a news source.

What are your legit sources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

:lol sez the self-congratulating, preening religious fool

Your "primary argument" has been destroyed.

Now, go pray to Christ to guide you in your hate.

---

So you deny that you are biased and don’t want to admit that you too have been indoctrinated by your life’s experience?

The sheer failure on your part to acknowledge any of it is the very same reason why you can’t allege ideological superiority.

I haven’t stated that my views are superior; simply that I have a right to vote in accordance to my creed. You’re one of few peeps here who has ever stated that we shouldn’t vote according to our religious views. You wishing to deny me or any other person of faith the right to our own conscience is fascist at its core. The hypocrisy of ranting about “tolerance” and the “justice” therefore, is lost in your inability to see past the logical inconsistencies of your constant pleading to silence anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I never claimed to be a news source.

What are your legit sources?

---

Depends on the subject matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Depends on the subject matter.

---

Just give some examples.

You are free to include subject matter for each source.

This is not a difficult question.

No, it’s not a matter of difficulty - I’m just laughing at the smugness with which you demand answers. I don’t answer to you. Much less when I am on my lunch break. Go bark up another tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

No, it’s not a matter of difficulty - I’m just laughing at the smugness with which you demand answers. I don’t answer to you. Much less when I am on my lunch break. Go bark up another tree.

---

:lol I'm just curious. It's a discussion board. You're smugly discussing news sources. You've smugly listed some sources you claim are not legitimate. It's natural to ask what sources you think are legitimate. You smugly act like it's some sort of offense to ask you that simple question.

There's no reason to be a smug little bitch, yet there you are.

Smugly bitchty.

Your pettiness is comical if your schtick weren’t so pathetic. Again, go bark up another tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Your pettiness is comical if your schtick weren’t so pathetic. Again, go bark up another tree.

---

Just say you're afraid to list your trusted news sources. It's not like your the only one.

The aggrieved critics of media bias become sullen and withdrawn when asked to volunteer unbiased sources.

Every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The aggrieved critics of media bias become sullen and withdrawn when asked to volunteer unbiased sources.

Every time.

---

Without exception.

Their cowardice is hilarious, especially after coming out so strongly against the sources they don't like.

The idea that there's some value-free perspective from which to report current events is naive. Mature reading involves a good bit of interpolation from the knowable biases of the reporters.

Relying on a single commentator or group of commentators who share your own bias runs the risk of epistemic closure -- which is just a fancy word for echo chamber or media bubble.

And that's ok. It's ok to be so sold out to your own bias that you don't even realize it is one.

That’s not the reason. It’s the absurd nature of control. The same biases are inferred at company levels as they are on personal ones. What’s foolish is the notion that anything or anyone outside of absolute truth itself can dictate the veracity of sources. The same biased dynamic plays out with so called "fact checking" sites or services. Their bias can be pointed out time and time again but they won’t change their ways anymore than they can change who they are. I would call out the naivety of believing that such a task can be objectively performed if not for the fact that most of you all honestly believe it and take them at their word. It’s textbook cognitive dissonance. At least I’m not in denial about evaluating motives, and people’s backgrounds when evaluating a source on a case by case basis.

Every single POLITICO article I’ve read is laced with ideological bias. You all don’t see it because you all agree with those biases. But that is the reason I refuse to read their op-eds anymore. Most of you all don’t embrace the concept of absolute truth either - which is ironic because most of you all approach Christians with absolute disdain. Predictably, without exception, every time.

So yeah forgive me if I don’t buy Chump's “this is a discussion board” excuse for the manner in which he demands that his questions be answered. He has a penchant for being combative and argumentative; which wouldn’t be such negative traits if not for the fact that he's never once on these boards admitted to being wrong about anything. His ways fray on people and I don't have to oblige his rude demands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The idea that there's some value-free perspective from which to report current events is naive. Mature reading involves a good bit of interpolation from the knowable biases of the reporters.

Relying on a single commentator or group of commentators who share your own bias runs the risk of epistemic closure -- which is just a fancy word for echo chamber or media bubble.

And that's ok. It's ok to be so sold out to your own bias that you don't even realize it is one.

---

Read that instrospectively and that's what I've been telling you all. I've long come to terms with the fact that this dynamic is a two-way street. Many of the board's left-leaning ideologues however, fail to admit this truth precisely because of the second dynamic that most of you all don't want to acknowledge - dismissively even. Namely, that the grand majority of news outlets, media companies, and other publications are all ideologically on the 'same team'. So it would seem that you all are unable to see the inherent danger that comes from having all of those sources echo each other. You all chalk it up to conspiracy talk - but the real dynamic is far simpler: those folks want power and they want it absolutely. That's the connective tissue to the NPR article I posted yesterday. Media conglomeration has mainly benefitted your ideological positions and none of your collective flags have even been raised. You all have become far too complacent in saying "see, so and so said this" without so much as batting an eye towards the biases contained in most of the articles that you all cite. You all take them for their word - and opposing viewpoints must be dismissed and ridiculed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

That’s not the reason. It’s the absurd nature of control. The same biases are inferred at company levels as they are on personal ones. What’s foolish is the notion that anything or anyone outside of absolute truth itself can dictate the veracity of sources. The same biased dynamic plays out with so called "fact checking" sites or services. Their bias can be pointed out time and time again but they won’t change their ways anymore than they can change who they are. I would call out the naivety of believing that such a task can be objectively performed if not for the fact that most of you all honestly believe it and take them at their word. It’s textbook cognitive dissonance. At least I’m not in denial about evaluating motives, and people’s backgrounds when evaluating a source on a case by case basis.

Every single POLITICO article I’ve read is laced with ideological bias. You all don’t see it because you all agree with those biases. But that is the reason I refuse to read their op-eds anymore. Most of you all don’t embrace the concept of absolute truth either - which is ironic because most of you all approach Christians with absolute disdain. Predictably, without exception, every time.

So yeah forgive me if I don’t buy Chump's “this is a discussion board” excuse for the manner in which he demands that his questions be answered. He has a penchant for being combative and argumentative; which wouldn’t be such negative traits if not for the fact that he's never once on these boards admitted to being wrong about anything. His ways fray on people and I don't have to oblige his rude demands.

---

I didn't call you a bitch until you demonstrated how much the question scared you.

I said it was a simple question. It remains a simple question. You aren't willing to engage in a discussion you started.

Basically every Trump supporter does it. They want to stay in their safe space bubbles. That's OK. But don't pretend you're doing it out of some high principle.

You're scared.

Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Read that instrospectively and that's what I've been telling you all. I've long come to terms with the fact that this dynamic is a two-way street. Many of the board's left-leaning ideologues however, fail to admit this truth precisely because of the second dynamic that most of you all don't want to acknowledge - dismissively even. Namely, that the grand majority of news outlets, media companies, and other publications are all ideologically on the 'same team'. So it would seem that you all are unable to see the inherent danger that comes from having all of those sources echo each other. You all chalk it up to conspiracy talk - but the real dynamic is far simpler: those folks want power and they want it absolutely. That's the connective tissue to the NPR article I posted yesterday. Media conglomeration has mainly benefitted your ideological positions and none of your collective flags have even been raised. You all have become far too complacent in saying "see, so and so said this" without so much as batting an eye towards the biases contained in most of the articles that you all cite. You all take them for their word - and opposing viewpoints must be dismissed and ridiculed.

---

Defining bias as *only* one side of the ideological spectrum and imputing malicious will and credulity exclusively to it looks like bias to me. So does excluding Fox and Sinclair from media consolidation.

For myself I doubt truth or virtue -- or any human frailty -- is distributed according to political orientation. Everyone's flawed and biased.You seem to think the side you're on has a monopoly on everything good.

Vive la difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

That’s not the reason. It’s the absurd nature of control. The same biases are inferred at company levels as they are on personal ones. What’s foolish is the notion that anything or anyone outside of absolute truth itself can dictate the veracity of sources. The same biased dynamic plays out with so called "fact checking" sites or services. Their bias can be pointed out time and time again but they won’t change their ways anymore than they can change who they are. I would call out the naivety of believing that such a task can be objectively performed if not for the fact that most of you all honestly believe it and take them at their word. It’s textbook cognitive dissonance. At least I’m not in denial about evaluating motives, and people’s backgrounds when evaluating a source on a case by case basis.

Every single POLITICO article I’ve read is laced with ideological bias. You all don’t see it because you all agree with those biases. But that is the reason I refuse to read their op-eds anymore. Most of you all don’t embrace the concept of absolute truth either - which is ironic because most of you all approach Christians with absolute disdain. Predictably, without exception, every time.

So yeah forgive me if I don’t buy Chump's “this is a discussion board” excuse for the manner in which he demands that his questions be answered. He has a penchant for being combative and argumentative; which wouldn’t be such negative traits if not for the fact that he's never once on these boards admitted to being wrong about anything. His ways fray on people and I don't have to oblige his rude demands.

---

you were linked to one of their news pieces, not their op-ed, and you brushed that one aside as illegitimate as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Defining bias as *only* one side of the ideological spectrum and imputing malicious will and credulity exclusively to it looks like bias to me. So does excluding Fox and Sinclair from media consolidation.

For myself I doubt truth or virtue -- or any human frailty -- is distributed according to political orientation. Everyone's flawed and biased.You seem to think the side you're on has a monopoly on everything good.

Vive la difference.

---

I'm not defining bias as being "only" one sided. I'm saying we all have it, but those on the left-leaning side of the ideological spectrum revel in the fact that most published sources in the last 30-40 years have come to embrace left-leaning ideology as well. They commit the fallacy of consensus gentium thinking that their position is superior simply because "more" embrace it. When that happens they subconsciously believe that their viewpoints are unbiased. The subsidiary fallacy is assuming that said ideology is representative of a broader swath of society simply because most media sources have come to echo each other. But media perspective is not necessarily indicative of society's perspective. What we are seeing now is ideological fascism - especially with the seething vitriol that people have in their plea to silence opposing views. <-- and THAT behavior is almost exclusively coming from those on the left.

Bottom line: Trump supporters are ashamed of their news sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

you were linked to one of their news pieces, not their op-ed, and you brushed that one aside as illegitimate as well

---

Well...

1) SpurHomer kept on ranting on Trump's culpability before these hearings have run their course. I don't have tolerance for that type of personality. Yes, I get it, he hates Trump, and wishes he was impeached.

2) I was at work, so my time was limited (was on hold on a conference call).

3) I don't trust Politico period. If they would just stick to reporting the "what", "how", "where", and "when" questions then their biases might not be as obvious. I don't need their writers interpreting events for me, they don't get to surmise on the "why". At THAT point "news pieces" become op-ed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

I'm not defining bias as being "only" one sided. I'm saying we all have it, but those on the left-leaning side of the ideological spectrum revel in the fact that most published sources in the last 30-40 years have come to embrace left-leaning ideology as well. They commit the fallacy of consensus gentium thinking that their position is superior simply because "more" embrace it. When that happens they subconsciously believe that their viewpoints are unbiased. The subsidiary fallacy is assuming that said ideology is representative of a broader swath of society simply because most media sources have come to echo each other. But media perspective is not necessarily indicative of society's perspective. What we are seeing now is ideological fascism - especially with the seething vitriol that people have in their plea to silence opposing views. <-- and THAT behavior is almost exclusively coming from those on the left.

---

You paint pictures with a very broad brush, that much is clear. You put a lot of weight on a totally undifferentiated they.

I can buy that the "centrism" and "common sense" are more or less an artificial crocks of shit, no matter who sells them. I can also buy that the (by now somewhat outmoded) gatekeeper legacy media represents either a phony consensus, or else the consensus of the talking heads.

Not sure what you mean about the ideological fascism -- who is silencing you, Phenomenul? Be as specific as you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I didn't call you a bitch until you demonstrated how much the question scared you.

I said it was a simple question. It remains a simple question. You aren't willing to engage in a discussion you started.

Basically every Trump supporter does it. They want to stay in their safe space bubbles. That's OK. But don't pretend you're doing it out of some high principle.

You're scared.

Period.

---

You still don't get it. You don't get to demand answers from me or anyone here. I don't owe you anything, much less respect. You haven't earned it. Your lame "it's a discussion board" excuse doesn't change the fact that the tone of your requests is condescending. You're rude and snide 100% of the time. As I said before your penchant for combative argumentation is tiresome, and you don't get to speculate as to my motives for choosing to reply or not reply. Last but not least, our dynamic here on this board is very different. You make a living on these forums. I frequent them and participate if I have time. My wife and I adopted 3 children two years ago (I have a total of 5 children now), therefore I have even less time than before. Yes I'm indoctrinating them. (sorry, not sorry).

Now that I'm no longer working. I can reply with an answer. I read pieces from Reuters, the AP, NPR, The Wall Street Journal , The New York Post, BBC, among others - including several Spanish speaking news outlets. The point is, I have to read them for bias and I certainly don't go running around suggesting that their word is absolute truth. Writing styles have morphed over the past 3 decades where more and more of the author's opinion has made its way into the writing. It's not a trend that I like, and especially not for news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Well...

1) SpurHomer kept on ranting on Trump's culpability before these hearings have run their course. I don't have tolerance for that type of personality. Yes, I get it, he hates Trump, and wishes he was impeached.

2) I was at work, so my time was limited (was on hold on a conference call).

3) I don't trust Politico period. If they would just stick to reporting the "what", "how", "where", and "when" questions then their biases might not be as obvious. I don't need their writers interpreting events for me, they don't get to surmise on the "why". At THAT point "news pieces" become op-ed.

---

1) spurs homer is a nut

2) no worries, im here during the work day as well, and do the same

3) you called BS as to the claim that ukraine stopped cooperating with mueller in order to receive weaponry, and were presented 2 different non op-ed sources which referenced that dynamic. what's the basis for brushing those specific articles off? or more specifically, as to your concern that they just stick with the reporting and not delve into their writers' interpretations, why not at least take those articles at face value in those segments which do the reporting, and then brush off the paragraphs which do the interpreting? both articles have pretty clear matter of fact reporting on the issue... but you cant be bothered to even consider them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

1) spurs homer is a nut

2) no worries, im here during the work day as well, and do the same

3) you called BS as to the claim that ukraine stopped cooperating with mueller in order to receive weaponry, and were presented 2 different non op-ed sources which referenced that dynamic. what's the basis for brushing those specific articles off? or more specifically, as to your concern that they just stick with the reporting and not delve into their writers' interpretations, why not at least take those articles at face value in those segments which do the reporting, and then brush off the paragraphs which do the interpreting? both articles have pretty clear matter of fact reporting on the issue... but you cant be bothered to even consider them?

---

I'm reading them now. Cause of point #2. Also I have to ensure the kids do their homework. I have an 10 year old doing differential calculus. So his assignments require more of my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

You still don't get it. You don't get to demand answers from me or anyone here. I don't owe you anything, much less respect. You haven't earned it. Your lame "it's a discussion board" excuse doesn't change the fact that the tone of your requests is condescending. You're rude and snide 100% of the time. As I said before your penchant for combative argumentation is tiresome, and you don't get to speculate as to my motives for choosing to reply or not reply. Last but not least, our dynamic here on this board is very different. You make a living on these forums. I frequent them and participate if I have time. My wife and I adopted 3 children two years ago (I have a total of 5 children now), therefore I have even less time than before. Yes I'm indoctrinating them. (sorry, not sorry).

Now that I'm no longer working. I can reply with an answer. I read pieces from Reuters, the AP, NPR, The Wall Street Journal , The New York Post, BBC, among others - including several Spanish speaking news outlets. The point is, I have to read them for bias and I certainly don't go running around suggesting that their word is absolute truth. Writing styles have morphed over the past 3 decades where more and more of the author's opinion has made its way into the writing. It's not a trend that I like, and especially not for news.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Russia hasn't been Communist for 20 years.

---

They're still as totalitarian though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

And yet Russia has a "dictator"-like leader, and China has a true "dictator".

The point being that everybody knows that Russia is not on the "up and up". They are an evil administration even if the term Communist is not officially in their title. They operate in very similar ways, with an iron rod of absolute power.

Sometimes you all are so dense, your petty rebuttals miss the point altogether.

Let me simplify even if it means I have to condescend.

Putin's regime is evil. Democrats sold 20% of America's Uranium to Putin's Russia. No leftist-leaning politician in the US challenged the Obama administration's Russia policy. They were lauded for mending bridges, for avoiding "Reganism". At the conclusion of the 2016 US Presidential Election however, the narrative necessitated that Russia be viewed as evil anew. That's why it's absurd to act surprised that MH17 was deliberately shot down. They've always been the same Russia. Same threat in different packaging.

---

Despotism is not the same as stalinism is not the same as maoism is not the same as communism. Only the first 3 are inherently totalitarian. Communism is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Politico... err Po-leftist-co yeah... I've long banned them from being a legit source about anything.

---

They're topics slightly left but from a factual standpoint politico is excellent. I bet you think Fox and Drudge are actually fair and balanced though.