The CHAZ thread

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

On 7/2/2020 at 2:54 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Yeah, funny how he's ignoring the bounty Putin put on US troops and how Trump ignored it too.

That's because it came from the New York Times. They have zero journalistic integrity. They're the same ones who cried wolf about the Russian collusion conspiracy for three years. I'll believe it when I see it (this bounty stuff) corroborated by a reputable source, not the NYT. Are there any available?

Not saying it would surprise me, given that the US has whacked Russian mercenaries in Syria. But so what? I'll believe the Russia Times before I believe the NYT:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/493089-times-afghanistan-russia-bounties/

[jakee 1,497]

2 hours ago, markharju said:

That's because it came from the New York Times. They have zero journalistic integrity. They're the same ones who cried wolf about the Russian collusion conspiracy for three years. I'll believe it when I see it (this bounty stuff) corroborated by a reputable source, not the NYT. Are there any available?

A) The NYT has excellent journalistic credibility. You're simply too biased to know real news if it smacked you in the face and ran off with your wife.

 

B ) What was congress briefed on if the intel doesn't exist? https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/nancy-pelosi-demands-briefing-russian-bounties-344219

Edited July 3, 2020 by jakee

[Guest]

At least I can spell.

This is yet another red herring where the NYT buys something totally bogus because it's too good to be true (like the phony Russia dossier) and publishes it without any kind of real investigation. It will be quietly disclaimed later after all the uproar has passed. You read it here first.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Guest

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 hours ago, markharju said:

That's because it came from the New York Times. They have zero journalistic integrity. They're the same ones who cried wolf about the Russian collusion conspiracy for three years. I'll believe it when I see it (this bounty stuff) corroborated by a reputable source, not the NYT. Are there any available?

Not saying it would surprise me, given that the US has whacked Russian mercenaries in Syria. But so what? I'll believe the Russia Times before I believe the NYT:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/493089-times-afghanistan-russia-bounties/

But you believe youtube videos.....

[jakee 1,497]

55 minutes ago, markharju said:

At least I can spell.

This is yet another red herring where the NYT buys something totally bogus because it's too good to be true (like the phony Russia dossier) and publishes it without any kind of real investigation. It will be quietly disclaimed later after all the uproar has passed. You read it here first.

You seem to be confused on a number of issues. First, Buzzfeed published the Steele dossier. Buzzfeed is not the New York Times, nor is it part of the same company or ownership structure. Second, the Steele dossier and the Russia collusion story are not the same thing, and you can't treat the two as completely interchangeable. 

Quote

Edited 49 minutes ago by markharju

Did you need to do that because you mispelled something? Be honest now

[billvon 2,995]

3 hours ago, markharju said:

That's because it came from the New York Times.

Even FOX is reporting it now.

Are you like Turtle?  Are you now going to claim that the NYT, CNN, FOX, George Will, the Lincoln Project and the former George W Bush administration are all leftists, and only you are a centrist?

[Guest]

NYT, CNN, FOX, George Will, the Lincoln Project and the former George W Bush administration all have one source - NYT.

[JerryBaumchen 1,364]

9 minutes ago, markharju said:

NYT, CNN, FOX, George Will, the Lincoln Project and the former George W Bush administration all have one source - NYT.

Hi Mark,

So the NYT has one source:  The NYT

And you are they guy who posted:  'At least I can spell.'

Hmmmmm,

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

11 minutes ago, markharju said:

NYT, CNN, FOX, George Will, the Lincoln Project and the former George W Bush administration all have one source - NYT.

Sure.

There's a reason those outlets trust the NYT.

Please cite all of the major stories in the last 6 months where the NYT was shown to be 'totally bogus' and published 'without investigation'.

[kallend 2,027]

4 hours ago, markharju said:

That's because it came from the New York Times. They have zero journalistic integrity.

Says the guy who posts proven garbage about 50% of the time.

[Phil1111 1,149]

4 hours ago, markharju said:

... I'll believe the Russia Times before I believe the NYT and US intel.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/493089-times-afghanistan-russia-bounties/

FIFY. Even FOX has reported that Congress and leaders of the House have received intel briefings on the matter. The same one your leader has called a "Hoax". Must be a new protocol now for the congress and house to receive "Hoax" briefings from US intel.

How is trump's friend and buddy President Xi doing in Hong Kong now?

[jakee 1,497]

48 minutes ago, markharju said:

NYT, CNN, FOX, George Will, the Lincoln Project and the former George W Bush administration all have one source - NYT.

Yet another thing you post that is objectively untrue.

 

Like, congratulations on knowing how to spell and all, but you'd be a lot better off if you knew how to research, or at least bullshit filter.

[DJL 235]

5 hours ago, markharju said:

I'll believe the Russia Times before I believe the NYT:

I don't think even you believe that, you're just trying to take a swing at NYT.  There is nothing being published by RT on this issue that would be contradictory to the approval of Vladimir Putin.  You may be able to accuse NYT of using this to throw shade at Trump but the story is very real that the intel existed and was credible enough to look into.

Edited to eliminate the notion that Putin would read the article and approve it for publication.

Edited July 3, 2020 by DJL

[Guest]

“Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials,” tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.

[Phil1111 1,149]

22 minutes ago, DJL said:

...  There is nothing being published by RT on this issue that doesn't come with the full review of Vladimir Putin.  ..

Putin doesn't need to review RT propaganda. Its editors and story tellers know the talking points. They know that anything that makes Russia or Putin look bad could send them out of a three story window onto the street below.

Its like the US military and ex-military supporters of trump. He stated he was the wartime president for the war on covid. Then he went AWOL. Yet his apologists won't hold him to account for that.

[DJL 235]

1 minute ago, Phil1111 said:

Putin doesn't need to review RT propaganda. Its editors and story tellers know the talking points. They know that anything that makes Russia or Putin look bad could send them out of a three story window onto the street below.

True, I'll edit for that clarification.  I didn't have it in mind that they would run the articles by him before publishing, just that they would never publish anything sensitive and counter to his wishes

[Phil1111 1,149]

5 minutes ago, markharju said:

“Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials,” tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.

Who? the only journalism she has ever authored was all out support for Assange. Who turned out to be a pro communist Putin mouthpiece.

Are you sure you are not a communist? Everything you say and every position you hold is pro-communist. Is your ip in Russia or China?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

13 minutes ago, markharju said:

“Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials,” tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.

You believe an unverified twitter account from a staunch Jullian Assange supporter. But the NYT is not to be trusted.

Now Benghazi, let me tell you all about Benghazi, and the sever that got removed.

 

[jakee 1,497]

25 minutes ago, markharju said:

“Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials,” tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.

Ok. And?

[kallend 2,027]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

You believe an unverified twitter account from a staunch Jullian Assange supporter. But the NYT is not to be trusted.

Now Benghazi, let me tell you all about Benghazi, and the sever that got removed.

 

Not sure if you were here back when he posted concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions in one thread but claimed Iran didn't have technology to make a sniper rifle in another.

He lost all credibility then, and has not regained any with claims like this one.

[billvon 2,995]

9 hours ago, markharju said:

NYT, CNN, FOX, George Will, the Lincoln Project and the former George W Bush administration all have one source - NYT.

FOX News, prominent Republicans and Republican presidential administrations all have the NYT as their only news source?  Not AP, not Reuters, not their own reporters, not AFP?

Are you nuts?

[Coreece 190]

18 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

So the NYT has one source:  The NYT

Well it is funny to me when news sources cite their own articles as sources. 

And now that Speakers Corner isn't obscured from web searches anymore, we can cite our own post as a source for that same post. . .

 

Example:

On 5/10/2020 at 10:29 AM, olofscience said:

On 5/10/2020 at 10:10 AM, Coreece said:

That was supposed to be the plan this time.

Source?

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q="That+was+supposed+to+be+the+plan+this+time."+

Edited July 4, 2020 by Coreece

[Phil1111 1,149]

25 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Well it is funny to me when news sources cite their own articles as sources. 

And now that Speakers Corner isn't obscured from web searches anymore, we can cite our own post as a source for that same post. . ....

There is a reason why the NYT is quoted so much. They the WP and Bloomberg have the most reporters.

Here is a ranking of US newspapers by 1999, the Columbia Journalism Review

.10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts by The Berlin School Of Creative Leadership

Then we have why Q, Facebook and others like trump have found so much success in peddling lies and misinformation. Share of adults who trust news media most of the time in selected countries worldwide as of February 2020

Peddling propaganda online is cheap and easy. Usually only state actors control larger media. But there are notable exceptions. Silvio Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch the main exceptions.

[turtlespeed 220]

On 7/3/2020 at 11:08 AM, markharju said:

At least I can spell.

This is yet another red herring where the NYT buys something totally bogus because it's too good to be true (like the phony Russia dossier) and publishes it without any kind of real investigation. It will be quietly disclaimed later after all the uproar has passed. You read it here first.

The problem here is that they do perform an investigation.

The investigation has pieces and parts that are too delicious to not be true.

So if they are too good NOT to be true - they have to be true, right?

Kinda like the Killian documents?