PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on February 09, 2024, 07:36:17 AM
-
As predicted, the propaganda media is melting down today because Tucker dared to let the world hear in Putin's own words why he has done what he has.
The political elites are horrified as they feel we should just listen to their narrative.
I watched the interview and found it interesting. Putin stated the obvious on the Nordstream pipeline. He also brought up some interesting facets on Ukraine the political elites and propaganda media doesn't want the world to know.
He also gave insight from his side in dealing with past US presidents, and dealing with the current one.
Tucker committed journalism, something that has almost vanished in the media. He will pay a price for this.
-
I see the communist EU is moving to ban him from their members lands.
In the interest of freedom of the press, they will shut down any attempt at telling the truth, because that is what communists do. If you don't believe me, look at the current administration in DC.
-
An interesting takeaway from the interview:
President Vladimir Putin: To use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the US political leadership. The dollar is the cornerstone of the United States power. I think everyone understands very well that no matter how many dollars are printed they are quickly dispersed all over the world.
Inflation in the United States is minimal. It’s about 3.0 or 3.4%, which is, I think, totally acceptable for the US. But they won’t stop printing. What does the debt of $33 trillion tell us about? It is about the emission. Nevertheless, it is the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its power across the world.
As soon as the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power. I would not like to use any strong language, but it is a stupid thing to do and a grave mistake.
Look at what is going on in the world. Even the United States allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves. Seeing this, everyone starts looking for ways to protect themselves. But the fact that the United States applies restrictive measures to certain countries, such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing assets et cetera, causes great concern and sends a signal to the whole world.
What did we have here? Until 2022, about 80% of Russian foreign trade transactions were made in us dollars and euros. US dollars accounted for approximately 50% of our transactions with third countries, while currently it is down to 13%. It wasn’t us who banned the use of the US dollar. We had no such intention. It was decision of the United States to restrict our transactions in US dollars.
I think it is complete foolishness from the point of view of the interest of the United States itself and its taxpayers as it damages the US economy, undermines the power of the United States across the world.
By the way, our transactions in yuan (Chinese currency) accounted for about 3%. Today, 34% of our transactions are made in rubles and about as much, a little over 34% in yuan.
Why did the United States do this? My only guess is self conceit. They probably thought it would lead to full collapse, but nothing collapsed.
Moreover, other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in yuan. Do you even realize what is going on or not? Does anyone in the United States realize this? What are you doing? You’re cutting yourself off.
All experts say this. To ask any intelligent and thinking person in the United States what the dollar means for the US. You’re killing it with your own hands!
-
(https://image.caglecartoons.com/282363/889/tucker-in-russia.png)
-
https://babylonbee.com/news/journalists-confused-by-journalist-doing-journalism
U.S. — Journalists across the country expressed a combination of outrage and confusion after a video surfaced online of a journalist doing journalism.
According to sources, the video, posted on social media platform X, shows known journalist Tucker Carlson wilfully and recklessly engaging in actual journalism without any regard for the damage that may be caused by such a wanton display.
"We're not sure what this guy thinks he's doing," said one New York Times columnist who asked to remain anonymous. "He's out here investigating and searching for the truth and interviewing world leaders on important geopolitical topics. Wild, unrestrained journalism. It's dangerous, really. Digging for information and conducting interviews and just… reporting what he's learned and putting it out there for people to see it? Are you serious?!"
With Carlson's much-anticipated interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin soon to be released to the public, mainstream journalists prepared for the worst. "I wouldn't even know what to do in that situation," said one CNN correspondent under the condition of anonymity. "Look, I'm a journalist, but at no point would I ever entertain the notion of, you know… doing journalism. That's beyond the pale. I don't think anyone could predict the consequences of doing such a thing. This Tucker guy is insane."
At publishing time, journalists throughout the media industry were sheltering in place in preparation for the Putin interview, unsure if the world as they knew it would even exist the following day after a journalist threw caution to the wind and did journalism.
-
and, of course, we should believe all the gems flowing from Putin's mouth and his propaganda machine...
-
and, of course, we should believe all the gems flowing from Putin's mouth and his propaganda machine...
No, but we should hear all sides so we can form opinions.
-
Vladimir Putin: “Do the United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory. You have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt, more than 33 trillion dollars… You have nothing better to do so you should fight in Ukraine? Wouldn’t it be better to negotiate with Russia? Make an agreement. Realizing that Russia that will fight for it’s interest to the end. Return to common sense and look for solutions.”
-
Tucker Carlson sure got attention, which is what he desired.
He is a "journalist" in the same way Rachel Maddow is.
I wonder if Carlson will also request an interview Zelensky?
-
Vladimir Putin: “Do the United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory. You have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt, more than 33 trillion dollars… You have nothing better to do so you should fight in Ukraine? Wouldn’t it be better to negotiate with Russia? Make an agreement. Realizing that Russia that will fight for it’s interest to the end. Return to common sense and look for solutions.”
Like him or not.
Trust him or not.
He makes a lot of sense here.
-
Tucker Carlson sure got attention, which is what he desired.
He is a "journalist" in the same way Rachel Maddow is.
So why isn’t he a journalist?
I wonder if Carlson will also request an interview Zelensky?
You can write him on his website and ask. From what I see I believe he would if given the opportunity.
However, I think Zelenskyy would want the interview highly controlled, such as questions beforehand so he could approve or disapprove them. Zelenskyy has had interviews with US reporters, and never any hard questions given.
-
Like him or not.
Trust him or not.
He makes a lot of sense here.
On several questions he did. On some more he simply filibustered. But it was refreshing to see actual journalism in play. We need more of this.
Another take away is there was no editing.
-
I always want to hear both sides. In any conflict, no matter which side you are on, you will understand it better if you listen to the other side and put yourself in their shoes. You may still believe one side is “right” and “good” and the other side is “wrong” and “evil” but if you don’t use your imagination and empathy to look at it from the “bad guy’s” point of view, you are missing a whole lot of the picture and don’t really understand much of the truth.
This is why I strongly resent mainstream media and the left in general trying to limit my access to information such as this interview with Putin. Or to any information at all - it’s why we have a First Amendment, the founders understood this very well. And it is why censorship is so beloved by totalitarians, authoritarians and tyrants.
-
Like him or not.
Trust him or not.
He makes a lot of sense here.
It is interesting how jim lined up against Tucker Carlson, and his criticism aligned perfectly with the left wing media. Nothing about the substance of the interview, only criticism of someone having the nerve to ask those questions without government guidance.
I guess libertarian really means liberal.
-
Tucker Carlson sure got attention, which is what he desired.
He is a "journalist" in the same way Rachel Maddow is.
I wonder if Carlson will also request an interview Zelensky?
Comparing Tucker Carlson to Maddow is like Comparing George Washington to Biden.
-
Tucker Carlson sure got attention, which is what he desired.
He is a "journalist" in the same way Rachel Maddow is.
I wonder if Carlson will also request an interview Zelensky?
Please provide your current list of journalists.
-
He is a "journalist" in the same way Rachel Maddow is.
Old Tucker, yes. Tucker has changed since he isn’t leashed by Fox anymore.
-
Please provide your current list of journalists.
That is the empty set. The meaning that I use are:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist)
"journalist:
1 a: a person engaged in journalism
especially : a writer or editor for a news medium"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism)
"journalism:
2 b: writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation"
-
That is the empty set. The meaning that I use are:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist)
"journalist:
1 a: a person engaged in journalism
especially : a writer or editor for a news medium"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism)
"journalism:
2 b: writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation"
So on the interview in question, how does this definition not apply to Mr Carlson?
-
So why isn’t he a journalist?
First, see my reply to EppyGA on the proper definition of journalist (the one "journalists" would like the public to think of when they use the term.)
Because Tucker's defense in court against a defamation suit relied on his claim that statements he makes on his shows are NOT necessarily factual. Here's the court case:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/ (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/)
-
First, see my reply to EppyGA on the proper definition of journalist (the one "journalists" would like the public to think of when they use the term.)
Because Tucker's defense in court against a defamation suit relied on his claim that statements he makes on his shows are NOT necessarily factual. Here's the court case:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/ (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/)
OK, when he did his show for FoxNews, I can see his points. The interview in question has nothing to do with his former employer, in fact his former employer would not have allowed it.
So you are alleging the media Mr. Carlson uses doesn't constitute journalism?
I get why you don't like the interview in question taking place. So are you in favor of the media controlling the narrative and not letting viewers see both sides of an issue?
-
I get why you don't like the interview in question taking place.
I don’t. Jim, why do you not want Putin to tell his side?
-
It is interesting how jim lined up against Tucker Carlson, and his criticism aligned perfectly with the left wing media. Nothing about the substance of the interview, only criticism of someone having the nerve to ask those questions without government guidance.
I guess libertarian really means liberal.
I am also curious to hear what Jim’s thinking on this is further. It sounds like he just doesn’t trust the guy because of the defense in the lawsuit.
There are of course elements of classical liberalism in libertarianism. I don’t believe there are many of what you may normally call a “liberal” today. I actually prefer the term “leftist” for this set of beliefs.
-
So you are alleging the media Mr. Carlson uses doesn't constitute journalism?
He engages in propaganda - anyone who has watched his shows realizes that. Just because propagandists dig for and present dirt, er, facts, doesn't make them unbiased and thus journalists. I may agree with the goals of some propagandist but they are still what they are.
I get why you don't like the interview in question taking place. So are you in favor of the media controlling the narrative and not letting viewers see both sides of an issue?
I never said I didn't like the interview taking place. I simply indicated that an ideal journalist would have also tried to interview Zelensky. But Carlson will likely not because he long ago indicated who he considers the worse side even before the secondary invasion of Ukraine:
https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-asks-why-us-should-side-ukraine-over-russia-2022-1 (https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-asks-why-us-should-side-ukraine-over-russia-2022-1)
Carlson has a specific opinion on Ukraine vs Russia and is acting to promote it. I consider it naive at best to label those actions as journalism in its most noble meaning.
-
I don’t. Jim, why do you not want Putin to tell his side?
There have been plenty of English language translations on the Internet of Putin and the Kremlin's views and public goals. If Carlson wants to spread them beyond the wonks who read that stuff that's fine with me. I simply state that he is engaging in propaganda, not journalism.
At his noblest Carlson may be attempting to promote non-interventionism. An excellent goal - but the whole point of non-intervention is to remove foreign war triggers. Promoting non-intervention after wars start often seems to yield worse results than fighting them to win.
-
I am also curious to hear what Jim’s thinking on this is further. It sounds like he just doesn’t trust the guy because of the defense in the lawsuit.
If my replies to others do not satisfy your curiosity let me know and I will try further.
-
He engages in propaganda - anyone who has watched his shows realizes that. Just because propagandists dig for and present dirt, er, facts, doesn't make them unbiased and thus journalists. I may agree with the goals of some propagandist but they are still what they are.I never said I didn't like the interview taking place. I simply indicated that an ideal journalist would have also tried to interview Zelensky. But Carlson will likely not because he long ago indicated who he considers the worse side even before the secondary invasion of Ukraine:
https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-asks-why-us-should-side-ukraine-over-russia-2022-1 (https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-asks-why-us-should-side-ukraine-over-russia-2022-1)
Carlson has a specific opinion on Ukraine vs Russia and is acting to promote it. I consider it naive at best to label those actions as journalism in its most noble meaning.
So what was propaganda during the interview? What did Carlson say or do that would constitute propaganda?
As far as your claim Carlson hasn't tried to interview Zelenskyy, how do you know this? I believe it's the other way around, Zelenskyy would be ducking an interview attempt by Carlson.
Why? Because Zelenskyy would be asked some tough questions by Carlson rather than the glowing softball crap the MSM does with him.
You don't want to accept that Zelenskyy is nothing more than a dictator, and you want the establishment version that he's somehow this saintly leader fighting for democracy. You can't seem to accept on many levels Zelenskyy is on par with Putin.
From what I'm gathering you are butthurt that Americans got a glimpse of the other side without editing and censorship. You are echoing the exact same crap the leftist are crying about. The more I read of your positions you seem quite happy to have censorship and a controlled narrative.
As far as your definition of journalism, the medium has shifted since those definitions came around. Instead of just print, we now have audio, video and other electronic means of journalism.
But since you demand we stick to the strictest meaning of a word, do you consider yourself to be gay? After all, for many many years if a person was gay that meant they were very happy. You are gay aren't you? ;)
-
There have been plenty of English language translations on the Internet of Putin and the Kremlin's views and public goals. If Carlson wants to spread them beyond the wonks who read that stuff that's fine with me. I simply state that he is engaging in propaganda, not journalism.
At his noblest Carlson may be attempting to promote non-interventionism. An excellent goal - but the whole point of non-intervention is to remove foreign war triggers. Promoting non-intervention after wars start often seems to yield worse results than fighting them to win.
Did you even watch the interview?
-
That is the empty set. The meaning that I use are:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist)
"journalist:
1 a: a person engaged in journalism
especially : a writer or editor for a news medium"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism)
"journalism:
2 b: writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation"
Huge deflection. Nice try. ::)
-
It seems like Jim often chooses the path that most closely aligns with the left narrative ignoring the obvious in favor of obfuscation.
-
There have been plenty of English language translations on the Internet of Putin and the Kremlin's views and public goals. If Carlson wants to spread them beyond the wonks who read that stuff that's fine with me. I simply state that he is engaging in propaganda, not journalism.
At his noblest Carlson may be attempting to promote non-interventionism. An excellent goal - but the whole point of non-intervention is to remove foreign war triggers. Promoting non-intervention after wars start often seems to yield worse results than fighting them to win.
Everything everyone says these days is propaganda. No one is claiming Tucker is unbiased, and the idea of a 100% unbiased journalist is a myth. At best, a good journalist endeavors to be objective but we are all human. So I am having trouble with:
1. Your judgement that Putin’s propaganda is worse than Zelensky’s and
2. Your implication therefore that Putin’s “reach” should be limited.
You are stating that we should not access more thorough information about the Kremlin’s views than the currently available public sources the “wonks” read? What?…. We should be satisfied with what mainstream media and the Biden Administration want us to know about Putin’s point of view? Since when do you trust those entities? We shouldn’t judge for ourselves to what extent Putin is lying and twisting the truth? Do you seriously believe the pro-Ukraine propaganda is any less lies and twisted half truths?
And if you think we should not retreat to a non-intervention position, now that the war has started, does that mean you support continuing throwing money at Ukraine while our border is undefended?
I don’t think you think all of the above, you just don’t like Tucker for some reason and therefore don’t like that he went over there and got a Putin interview. But correct me if I’m wrong.
-
The left media is pissed that Tucker dared to share a side of the story they didn’t approve.
jim is parroting their position but couching it in terms of faux concern about how people hearing more than one bias is a danger to democracy.
More nonsense from a pretend libertarian.
-
https://rumble.com/v4chxh0-you-wont-believe-what-cnn-has-to-say-about-biden..-guest-styxhexenhammer666.html
-
It's refreshing to hear the other side of the story. We've been fed Z's and FJB's side nonstop for over a year. Now we can hear the other side. There's propaganda on both sides, half truths, and outright lies. But to censor one side in favor of the other is a hallmark of a totalitarian regime. Critical thinking must be suppressed at all costs. Blind obedience is required.
-
Jim, how many of Tucker's interviews have you watched since he was forced out at FoxNEWS?
-
It's refreshing to hear the other side of the story. We've been fed Z's and FJB's side nonstop for over a year. Now we can hear the other side. There's propaganda on both sides, half truths, and outright lies. But to censor one side in favor of the other is a hallmark of a totalitarian regime. Critical thinking must be suppressed at all costs. Blind obedience is required.
The hallmark of war and of conditions necessary leading up to war is both sides must paint the other as the absolute face of evil, and then dehumanize them. This is necessary to morally justify slaughtering them. This must involve the distortion of their motives, including the rejection of any understandable motives, otherwise you risk empathizing with the enemy, which is problematic if you are trying to kill them. Of vital importance is upholding this to your people, otherwise they will not support your war efforts - they will resist sending their sons to be killed. Hence propaganda is the only information each sides allows.
Thus, one side of the story is never the whole story or the complete truth when people are at war. The censorship done by the country at war may not necessarily be the hallmark of a totalitarian regime. The U.S. engaged in propaganda in the two world wars without being totalitarian. But where I agree with you is this: A country not at war engaging in censorship on behalf of another country, especially one that is not even a formal ally, is a sign of creeping totalitarianism. Rather than allow U.S. citizens to participate in an informed decision whether or not to support Ukraine, the Biden regime (Uniparty, MIC) is making the decision for us (to the benefit of their own bank accounts) and censoring information to manipulate us into agreement (which is working on the low IQ portion of the population).
Combine that with a lot of other outrageous and overt tyrannical behaviors, this regime is indeed lurching toward totalitarianism. The biggest clue is the corruption of elections - their goal is an ironclad hold on power, with elections becoming but a sad, rubber stamping formality. Just like Russia, ironically. Maybe that’s why they don’t want us looking too closely at that country.
-
It seems like Jim often chooses the path that most closely aligns with the left narrative ignoring the obvious in favor of obfuscation.
I do appreciate his opposing viewpoints, but when he mis-characterizes someone like Carlson, I have to call him on it. Still, good to have dissenting opinion.
-
Wow, I’m listening to it now. He just described what happened when he proposed a joint missile defense alliance to the president and was led to believe talks could go forward, but was then given the cold shoulder, as it happened after the president consulted his agencies (ie, CIA) and Tucker said wait, are you saying that the presidents are being led around by their agencies? And Putin said yes.
That explains a lot! Why the deep state doesn’t want us to hear Putin’s thoughts, and, confirming the extent to which events are actually controlled by lifelong unelected bureaucrats, not the every 4 or 8 years it changes executive.
-
The Attempted Re-Demonization of Russia
By Jeffrey A. Tucker
2/9/2024
Well, Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin on X gained 100 million views in less than 12 hours. Nothing on the planet earth coming from corporate media gains that level of reach. This feels like several turning points at once, not only in Western perceptions of the war between Russia and Ukraine plus the perceptions toward Putin himself but also in the cultural control by the old media.
We are at a strange moment in American perceptions of geopolitics. For years now, really since 2016, we have been instructed by political elites that Putin is a demonic monster and that Russia needs regime change. There has always been an element of nostalgia about this outlook, one that taps into a deep memory of the Cold War and long before.
But was this valid? It’s a long habit of statecraft for the leaders of one nation to demonize the whole of another nation. Throughout most of history, people largely went along with this because that is all the information we had. The result was a long history of wars from which only the elites benefit. The habit also introduces a moral hazard: domestic leaders can deploy foreign despots as suitable distractions against domestic depredations.
In this little game, Russia has long been a useful black beast (the bête noire, in French) from abroad. It’s just a bit strange because Russia certainly made a huge difference in the U.S. war of independence from Britain. In 1780, Catherine the Great formed the League of Armed Neutrality which prevented the British from blockading American trade ports and kept the U.S. economy afloat in hard times.
For most of the 19th century, Russia was considered by Americans to be a Western nation and a cultural ally. Americans loved everything Russian, from music to novels to ballet. The Bolshevik Revolution rattled the United States and kicked off the first of several major red scares but by the 1930s, Fred Astaire was singing songs about a popular dance craze: “It’s like a fever, It’s like a plague; It’s swept all Europe, From Moscow to The Hague.”
Russia was allied with the United States in the Second World War and did a vast amount of the work to defeat the Nazis. As grim and horrible as Stalin was, the U.S. president sat down with him as allies in this struggle against the Nazi empire.
Oddly, this changed again in 1948. Having agreed to cede to Moscow vast control of Eastern Europe, the United States rediscovered the Soviet threat, and a new war commenced. The flip from friend to enemy was so sudden and extreme that George Orwell wrote it up: his book “1984” was really about 1948 when national leaders could turn on a dime and reverse the past.
As a child of the Cold War, loathing Russia and all its works was integral to my ideological formation. In general, the left wanted peace and negotiated arms control while the right wanted to contain and roll back the Soviet empire, and even flirted with the idea of initiating nuclear war. This struggle was not only geopolitical; it was ideological, framed as a struggle of freedom versus tyranny.
But then something amazing happened in 1989. Reforms dating back years, even all the way to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, ended up toppling the entire empire about which we had read for many years. It was there and suddenly it was gone.
It was a time of great celebration, a period celebrated as the “end of history” because now the world developed a consensus against communism and for democratic capitalism. That turned out to be an illusion but what was absolutely true is that Russia normalized as plain-old Russia: very religious, nationalist, quirky, quasi-Western, and resource-rich home of artistic excellence and brooding novels about human nature.
But then came 2016 and Donald Trump wrecked all the plans of the U.S. power elite by winning the presidency. The decision was made early on to blame Russia, however implausibly. Years of reporting and investigations into this supposed conspiracy turned up absolutely nothing. The election was really about how the American people generally loathed Hillary Clinton and decided to give Donald Trump a chance. It’s pretty simple.
Still, one faction of the American ruling class could not let it go. Russia was slated to be the new enemy, period. So when Putin decided during COVID lockdowns to regain control of an Eastern portion of Ukraine, packed with ethnic Russians who were smarting under the rule of Kiev, all hell broke loose.
Nearly the whole of the U.S. ruling class announced that this was a struggle for the future of freedom itself—more or less like George Bush said about Iraq’s move against Kuwait in 1990 over disputed oil lands.
It was never clear whether the American people were going along with the level of intensity that was being demanded of them. Nonetheless, during extremely hard economic times at home, the United States has sent more than $75 billion to fund Ukraine’s war of resistance. If you pay for war, there will be war.
Why exactly this came to be prioritized is a matter of some speculation but, regardless, as part of this has come the inevitable claim that Putin, a very popular leader at home, is a Hitler-like demon who needs to be overthrown.
But we live in different times, and some journalists have stepped up to question the seemingly mandatory narrative. Independent journalist Tucker Carlson has done an interview with Putin, the first Western journalist to gain access since this whole Ukraine thing broke out. In the interview, Putin claims to want peace and an end to the hostilities. Surely there can be a brokered agreement here to spare more lives and expenses. And let’s face it: Putin said many seemingly sensible things.
To top it off, the interview is being viewed one hundred times as much as any broadcast of the corporate news. This is largely due to the rise of Elon Musk’s X as an information portal, one of the few that is free of the aggressive censorship that took hold of U.S. media during the presidency of Donald Trump.
Agree or disagree with Tucker or Putin, this kind of information sharing is precisely the hope that the internet promised the world when it came along. It was supposed to emancipate us from government and corporate control of the public mind. This is an example of exactly that. And it is an example full of hope. With more of this sort of thing, we might see a greater chance for peace and less manipulation by elites of every nation.
Some advice to the corporate media that will go unheeded: be careful in treating Tucker Carlson as treasonous or seditious. It’s not clear that it is going to work this time. At great risk to himself, he has flown to Moscow to let the hated enemy speak directly to the American people. Agree or disagree, isn’t this how an intelligent and mature society deals with conflict? The whole idea of free speech is to allow the freedom to listen too. That’s all that is going on.
I’m perfectly willing to grant that I had very likely accepted as true many untruths about Russia during the Cold War. This is what happens when you back yourself into an ideological corner. You are then ripe for being propagandized by people who want you to see the complicated geography of politics as a simple Manichean struggle between good and evil.
Now 35 years after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. corporate press behaves like how we were told Pravda operated in the old days, while X (Twitter) is the new Samizdat. Except there is a difference: the previously unsayable is drowning out the mandatory narrative.
Meanwhile the U.S. president is the one pushing for ever more mandates and controls on enterprise, while the Russian president shocks the Western elites by proclaiming his desire for peace over war.
The truth is always more complicated than simple geopolitical ideologizing suggests. Surely adults can handle that.
-
I can’t understand why supposed libertarians instantly sided against the free exchange of information.
And why is free speech the enemy?
Didn’t matter if the topic was the fucking scam of a pandemic, or the fucking scam vaccines. It made no difference if it was the bullshit Russia Russia Russia scam, or the Trump is going to destroy democracy, liberals and their new bitch, libertarians are and did side against free speech, individual freedom, liberty and any opinion that wasn’t approved by the fucking communist democrats and their owners in fucking china.
-
Something to ponder. Remember all those "sanctions" to hurt Russia?
https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1758148520769364382?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1758148520769364382%7Ctwgr%5E67e8c03b29c775e59786fe981c3d701606cba625%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frantingly.com%2F
-
Tucker went grocery shopping....
https://twitter.com/i/status/1758160499571618147
-
Tucker went grocery shopping....
https://twitter.com/i/status/1758160499571618147
Meaningless without cost of living context.
-
The old Soviet Union had two tiers of shopping. One for the political elite and foreign visitors (See! We have no shortages here.), and one for everyone else where you stand line all day for whatever sawdust bread they might still have. I wonder if this is the same sort of thing.
-
Meaningless without cost of living context.
I’ve followed this since FJB put “sanctions” on Russia. The average Russian is enjoying a great economy while ours is going down hill. Russia is also moving away from the dollar in trading, which hurts us even more.
FJB is everything Russia has dreamed about.
-
The old Soviet Union had two tiers of shopping. One for the political elite and foreign visitors (See! We have no shortages here.), and one for everyone else where you stand line all day for whatever sawdust bread they might still have. I wonder if this is the same sort of thing.
What I heard is things are good for the big city dwellers, specifically Moscow. But away from there in the rural areas they’re still not so well off, but I’ve no idea how true that is nor how it compares to the average U.S citizen.
-
I’ve followed this since FJB put “sanctions” on Russia. The average Russian is enjoying a great economy while ours is going down hill. Russia is also moving away from the dollar in trading, which hurts us even more.
FJB is everything Russia has dreamed about.
And a FJB is everything China has dreamed about. He's helping our two worst enemies. Great huh?
-
And a FJB is everything China has dreamed about. He's helping our two worst enemies. Great huh?
Russia is less of an enemy than the msm and the establishment want everyone to believe. During my time in the military during the Cold War it became obvious that the USSR was not this huge threat. They still aren’t.
China is a threat. So is Iran. Iran’s threat is the nukes, and people with a medieval mindset having them. They are just stupid enough to launch a nuke on their neighbor.
China is devious, and they’ve made it clear that their goal is world domination. China has no problem cooking up germ warfare. Any other nefarious warfare is fair game for them.