gearhog

I wasn't going to, but I am now. I want to see for myself what it is you're so afraid of. Actually, you do need to listen to something to understand it. Otherwise, aaagain.... you're only regurgitating someone else's conclusion. As I said, we also have intel and propaganda campaigns. Would you say those are more or less robust than those of Russia? I say more. It's also a well documented fact that those tools have been used on our own citizens. I don't give the first flying fuck about any Russian politician, soldier, or citizen. The direct threat they pose to my life is insignificant compared to my own government and people who would advocate for censorship. And I'm definitely not going to allow them or you dictate to me what I can and can't think. Wish no one would listen to Duran? Wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up first. Perhaps you saw it, but I posted this earlier today. It's an excerpt taken from the The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. John Madison, June 29th. You should read some of it if your online bias check website deems it safe for you. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke. What I am suggesting here is nothing new. This was a big issue 237 years ago among our founding fathers as much as it was an issue a thousand years ago. That you so aggressively, yet naively assert that we have only the most noble of intentions on a rapidly growing list of conflicts is just proud ignorance. If I want the truth, I have to consider the perspective of someone on the outside looking in. I have a strong marriage of 26 years. Due in large part in our ability to listen and try to understand another perspective even though it may be flawed. I'm not wasting my time here. The ideas I'm submitting are for your benefit least of all. You're unreachable. You can go listen to or not listen to whatever you want. Participate in your own delusional projection of calling other people shills while simultaneously engaging in it yourself. Do not care. What you are is a generic amalgamation of bad faith and bad reasoning. Sort of boiled down Great Value version of every neocon in position of power, and I have the opportunity challenge it. Some people may not agree, but I think it's going really well.

False. You didn't answer those questions. You just named a few more sources that shouldn't be listened to without substantiating it. Now you're telling me to Google your defense. "Whatever pops up on Google Search results is what my position is." LOL Really? You can't form an original critical thought of your own? "If you want to know what I think, Google it." For the third time, you should reread your posts before you hit submit reply. Your standard for intellectual honesty is "Do you agree with me?". If content doesn't agree with your opinion, it's obviously Russian propaganda. If someone listens to that content, they're obviously a shill. And you're calling me a contrarian? Ridiculous and hypocritical. Of course I am aware of all the Russian IA. But you act as if coming into contact with it carries the same risk as getting herpes from your mom. We're all adults and we can discern the risks and bad information. Have you not also read the chilling ways in which our own Intel agencies influence public opinion? I'm not talking about Russians. F them. I mean the ways in which our govenment manipulates our people. It's out there classifed and unclassifed. "Google it." At this point, it's obvious you don't even know what the "in depth analysis" is. You've adopted a weak position and you'd rather die defending it than abandon it an seek a better one. Par for the neocon adjacent. Another dodge. Accuse me of "playing victim" for asking a question, so as to not answer the question again. I'm subscribed to Zeihan and have been since someone else on this forum recommended him about a year ago. He has some great points. He also comes up with some BS while stumbling through the mountains. I also read and have even posted content from those other sources here on this forum. Yes, there's a lot of good stuff, but there's some questionable stuff as well. I'll read it all. Again, you appear to outsource all of your bullshit detection to third party internet websites. Media bias checks? Why wouldn't you just read it for yourself and decide? You're like drop-shipper of BO.net. You're just marketing and selling other peoples products, or critical thinking skills.

There's not enough hours in the day to read all the things I want to read or watch. To be efficient with my time, I make personal choices as to where I get the most value. You likely do the same, but I wouldn't apply a label to you because of where you sift through info. I also wouldn't spend more time ridiculing you for where you seek info than it would take for me to read what you'd be referring to. In this case, the podcast that has his panties in a twist looks to be about 20 min long. The title is "Preventing Ukraine Collapse during the US election." That could be the title of any Western Neocon slanted podcast. Lawman isn't ignoring information that doesn't meet a standard, he's waving his arms like a crazy person shouting "Don't look over here!". At some point, one has to ask, "Well... why?" Now I want to know what you're acting all weird about. So if the content hasn't met a standard, can I at least know what the standard is? Maybe a few examples? That's not an unreasonable request. Pretending to be indignant because someone has the audacity to ask what your problem or why the content hasn't met your standard, doesn't automatically grant you credibility. If one of the standards is having an active interest in the conflict, shouldn't we condemning a few US media outlets as well? That's just a test for hypocrisy. If Lawman is unwilling or unable to name any, then he's a hypocrite, and deserves to be relegated to the status of RT, Pravda, and the like. He is no more honest than they.

What is this, a half dozen or so exchanges we've now had? Each time, I ask what is the specific information you're disputing. Each time, you dodge the question and choose the ad-hominem tactic. You're just keep repeating a fallacious argument. Let's look at the information in a vacuum and evaluate the thing you're upset about. So what's it like on the inside of an actual vault? Do you get to see who killed JFK? Is there a top secret file on the Duran that enlightens you to something you can only allude to, but not actually say. I wouldn't know, but I'm mystified and super impressed. Where did you get this screen shot? What was in the video? What did he say that was wrong? The best defense against bad information is good information, not no information. As should be apparent, I thoroughly... thoroughly... enjoy challenging an opposing viewpoint. A lot. I wouldn't be pursuing this if I didn't know for a fact your position was weak. I know it is because you won't go anywhere near the crux of the issue. You're trying way too hard to dismiss any threatening information wholesale before it's heard, even by you, by attacking the source. I'll even concede to you it's possible that the vast majority of info coming from these sources completely fabricated, but it's impossible that all of it is. I'll wade through a ton of BS to find an ounce of truth, even yours. What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with? You've made it abundantly clear where that information is being broadcast from, I just want to know what the information is that you don't like. Let's dispense with your haughty condescending ego performance around RT and get down to brass tacks. So, let me repeat the question: What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?

I am not a military officer.

I've been making my way through this page. Fascinating debates by our founding fathers about their concerns when writing the Constitution. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp I found this passage pertaining to John Madison's speech to be particularly relevant today. It's from June 29th. "His great fear was that their Governments would then have too much energy, that these might not only be formidable in the large to the small States, but fatal to the internal liberty of all. The same causes which have rendered the old world the Theatre of incessant wars, & have banished liberty from the face of it, would soon produce the same effects here. The weakness & jealousy of the small States would quickly introduce some regular military force against sudden danger from their powerful neighbours. The example would be followed by others, and would soon become universal. In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke. The insular situation of G. Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe. It has rendered less defence necessary, and admitted a kind of defence which could not be used for the purpose of oppression. -These consequences he conceived ought to be apprehended whether the States should run into a total separation from each other, or shd. enter into partial confederacies. Either event wd. be truly deplorable; & those who might be accessary to either, could never be forgiven by their Country, nor by themselves."

The only person who has mentioned or linked to RT is you. Am I wrong? Quote the post. The best you can do is... stil... a random unsourced screenshot of an unknown person claiming the podcast is linked, but by multiple layers of separation. This is called the "straw man argument" and you can add it to your growing list of dubious debate tactics. It would be so cool if you would just acknowledge, address, and debate the actual specific pieces of information you disagree with. You'll also find it's much easier than using your repertoire of tactics to do anything but. Yes, RT is an outlet for state propaganda. This is not new information and I thought it was so obvious that I didn't need to make a confession to you. We in the US, also have dozens of media outlets coordinating with government officials to censor dissenting information and distribute approved information. That shouldn't be new information, either. Do you not know this? It's just a fact of life that both sides carry water for both governments. Objectively, usable information can still be gleaned. There is virtually no unbiased information floating around out there. All of it has to be taken with a grain of salt, deconstructed, and it's parts evaluated. Not only do you refuse to do any of this, but admit that you don't even know who has deemed that info as false. And then you wave it around to everyone shouting "PROOF!" It's mind-bending. I'm not here just to be contrarian. My motivations are not a problem for me or anyone else. I'm not being creative here. Lying takes effort and this is effortless. These things are as apparent to me as going inside, pointing up and saying "Hey, the sky is blue" and being met with a chorus of angry people saying "Why did you go outside? WTF? Putin also thinks the sky is blue you Russian shill! It's not always blue, sometimes it's gray, liar! Whatabout the clouds? They're white, moron!" I only want people to consider than they're being manipulated. What is the alternative to Bashi or me or anyone else posting here with a different perspective? Would you rather have a little circle jerk with only the people who wear the same blinders you do? That's what it seems like. You're actually arguing that you don't have first hand knowledge or critical thinking skills. You just let other strange people on the internet tell you what info you should and should not look at. I find it fascinating anyone operates like that.

If it weren't for the US, wouldn't Russia win? Virtually all of our leadership has been saying this. There's countless examples of Ukrainian corruption. It's been over two years. I've lost count of the funding, but I think we're closing in on $200 Billion, yet the front lines haven't moved much at all. What are we going to get for another $200 Billion? Who exactly is bleeding whom dry? It's not apparent. I don't want to believe that maybe we're the ones being played, but I have to wonder. Just a mention of the players involved elicits an overwhelming bias. If we were somehow able to examine this exact same battlefield scenario while replacing the names of the states involved with Moravia, Tiberistan, etc.. I think many people would feel differently. One of us may post a vid of a Russian plane crash, and another responds with Ukr tank on fire. No one knows what's going on. It's all third hand information. The only thing that can be known is that the war is still raging.. when it shouldn't be. If winning this war was as important as they'd like you to believe - it'd have already been over. As I've said before: there's no money in the cure. I'd think by now people would understand the playbook. It's just routine now. 1. Find a crisis and exacerbate it. If one doesn't exist, create it. 2. Full-court press on the propaganda front to appeal to public fear and garner support. 3. Transfer hundreds of billions of dollars from the public sector to the private sector. It's like taking candy from a baby and everyone's falling for it. Every. Single. Time. Let's just admit we're completely lost in apathy and gullibility.

That restaurant metaphor wasn't mine. You seem to have this blind implicit trust in anyone that happens to be in a position of authority. Wouldn't you want to know why something was deemed unsafe rather than just accept anything someone says at face value just because they happen to be aligned with your beliefs? It's easy to fool someone, but it takes 10x the effort to convince most people that they've been fooled. You're so deep into the approved narrative that you're unwilling to even listen. In this case, the link/play button for the podcast in question was directly in front of your face, one click away. But you chose to navigate away/open up another page, do a google search, screenshot a random claim of that podcast being Russian propaganda, which was substantiated only by other media outlets making baseless claims. Then you had to copy/save/upload/post it, and act all condescending like it was the gospel, while not one step in your entire process contained an original thought of your own, a source, or specific point. It's bewildering that you, a self-proclaimed professional military officer, would try to pass this off as some sort of astute deductive reasoning. It's so glaringly intellectually dishonest, it's insulting that you would expect anyone to even consider that you might have a valid position. It seems crazy to me that you somehow thought that was the best/most honest COA. If you were correct in your assessment, it would have been far easier for you, and more difficult for me to refute, if you'd have listened to 5-10 minutes and said "Here are some of the claims being made... and they're false Russia propaganda because here are the facts..." I could respect that. But we both know why that didn't happen: When you know your position can't be adequately defended or finding a flaw in the opposing argument proves too difficult... name-calling, hyperbole, and ad hominem are the preferred tactics. Not one person on this website has ever, ever, been a cheerleader for Russia as much as you would like to paint them as such. Many of us here have, however, reasonably argued that our US leadership shares some (not all) amount of the blame for the origination of the chaos and conflict we are experiencing, as well as the continuous funding and intensification of multiple conflicts on multiple fronts. No one here hates America, and no one wants America to fail. But it's easy for our obviously corrupt leadership to lead us further into trouble when they have people like you willing to do these ridiculous logical gymnastics to justify their actions and cock block dissident voices because you don't want to be proven wrong.

Uh… yeah? I do around 8 overnights a month, and I make it a point to explore new places, look at the menu, and experience things for myself. I don’t understand how you mean that as a criticism. What would you suggest? Read a single review and repeat it to everyone I know without any first hand knowledge? This is what I meant when I asked if you read your posts from the perspective of others. I’m sure it sounded like a zinger in your own head, but….??

That's a lot of typing to say you don't know what info you're labeling as Russian propaganda, but it isn't going to stop you.

I noticed you never addressed any specific claims in the podcast. If you are an honest person, what specific claims or false information were in that podcast that you feel were dangerous and subversive? You didn't listen to it. You just googled it and the proof you provided was a screenshot of an unknown website that actually uses the word "accuses" in reference to other media outlets making claims about the podcast being Russian propaganda. How is that any more substantive than you simply making those claims without any proof and no screenshot. Again, I find it difficult to believe you, a professional military officer, is posting these things without pausing, stepping back, and seeing how little sense it makes. I don't know anything about that podcast and my schedule is full, so I probably won't listen... but why should anyone trust you for slapping RP labels on something, only because it was posted by BC? I read one of your earlier posts on population or whatever earlier and it actually made sense, but what if I were to dismiss it because I automatically label everything you say as BS? You're not being honest.

Curious, do you ever read what you write from the perspective of someone else? You often make some good points, yet sometimes post things that are bizarre. These things jump off the page when I read them as glaringly obvious. Perhaps you don't realize name-calling and hyperbole in the first sentence makes your position seem weaker. You seem to be affirming that "Yes, we do have PsyOp programs" and "the ends justifies the means", which is a widely accepted Machiavellian principle. That those means won't also be used against you should your interests diverge seems incredibly naive. And lastly, you seem to be calling the people on your side A-holes while simultaneously expressing faith that those same assholes have you and your children's best interests in mind. It seems completely inverted because you're the one defending them for foreign policy decisions that will result in conflict for you and your family. You care about them more than they care about you. I'm not trying to attack you, but it does seem crazy to me.

Something something liberty and safety.

I thought you were talking about a Russian podcast since that was the example you provided. I just wondered if we had an equivalent state funded controlled media foreign propaganda outlet. ...And apparently we do, although they may not have the power and reach of the 250th ranked podcast in the US. Thanks, I was completely unaware that these existed. I am happy to know they aren't dangerous or subversive, because I wouldn't want to know that we were being hypocritical.