Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by me again, Jan 5, 2017.
N.B.: No one takes PJ Media seriously who isn't already conservative.
...and until recently, not even many conservatives.
If that is your decree then it must be so.
Looks like he may want to expand that room. Maybe take a page from the X-Men and rename it the "Danger Room"?
Sarah Palin, future ambassadrice des États-Unis au Canada ? | JDM
I think that was an excellent opinion-piece.
The American Democratic party really does seem to face an existential decision: Whether to try to address why it seems to have lost the support of many of its traditional supporters among the middle classes in the last election, or whether to adopt a Jeremy Corbyn-style direction of appealing more and more to the party's ideological activist base.
That's why the current campaign for leadership of the DNC is so interesting.
Russia. She can see Russia from her house.
Srsly, this is probably a joke, although I would not be surprised. In this case, we just appoint Justin Bieber Ambassador to US and call it a day. Oh, I know! Pamela Anderson. She's the Canadian best equipped to find common ground with Donald Trump.
Come to think of it, this is a great case study in self-inflicting wounds. What Yusra Khogali is saying is a valid point: too often, Canadian indignation towards the US is hollow and hypocritical. We (I still say "they") tend to do easy symbolic things like the turban guy in RCMP, but the practice on the ground is as racist or more than south of the border. We tend to gloss over or forget very recent events (like residential schools) or even ongoing controversies (First Nations missing women, or "carding" that's our version of stop and frisk; I'm sure there's more) and focus on US stuff that makes us feel good; if you try to advocate for actual change this must be very frustrating. Yet, Yusra Khogali fell victim of her own rhetoric and sounded completely bonkers, and THAT what gets reported. Self-inflicted wound.
Interesting piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/how-to-beat-trump/515736/. I do not agree with it all, but one thing is absolutely true: protests against Trump policies SHOULD be more patriotic, bring out national flags, military vererans in uniform, Lady Liberty and Constitution iconography. Much more effective, and appropriate. I remember attending an anti-Putin protest Ukrainian community put together back in 2014. I sang the Ukrainian anthem with everyone and remember thinking "we should sing Oh Canada as well; it's a mistake not to". At the very next event less than a week later, it turned out they got a message; Oh Canada was sung, and there was a Canadian flag. Women's Marches, take note.
Of course she never said that. (That was the media ridiculing her. The line actually came from a mean-spirited Tina Fey caricature on Saturday Night Live.)
Political misquotes: The 10 most famous things never actually said - "I can see Russia from my house!"
What she actually said was that one can see Russia from Alaska. Which is absolutely true. In the middle of the Bering strait lie the two Diomede islands, Big Diomede and Little Diomede. They are only about 2 km apart and one (Little Diomede) is part of the State of Alaska while the other (Big Diomede) is part of the Russian Federation (the easternmost point in Russia). Interestingly, the International Date Line runs between them, so they are usually experiencing different days of the week.
Russia's Big Diomede is uninhabited (its inhabitants were removed during the Cold War), but somewhere upwards of 100 Americans live in a tiny settlement on Little Diomede.
I think that joke referred to the fact that Alaska's proximity to Russia was one of the very few things Palin (and McCain btw) touted as her foreign policy qualifications. In fact, that is what she did say in that interview:
This is blatant and rather hilarious non-answer; much of the interview is exactly like this. SNL spoofs of Palin were actually rather kind, considering that word salads like this helped lower the bar which helped give us Trump.
#9 on your list, on the other hand, is vicious and highly unfair attack on Gore. In reality, he never claimed he invented the Internet, but he did exactly what he said: " during my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet". A lot of people who actually took part in, you know, inventing the parts of the Internet (like Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, creators of TCP/IP, protocol stack that carried every letter in this post from me to the forum and back to you) give Gore Act of 1991 a lot of credit; it is in fact a major initiative in the history of creating the Internet. Yet the "leftist media" decided that mocking Gore brings more ad revenue.
Oh, please. You know how you feel when people cite Occupy Democrats? It's like that, and you know it.
What source do you take seriously? Reason?
Didn't we have this conversation recently?
Reason is okay, although I recognize the danger in that its editorial position is close to mine. I stopped reading the comments there; they're useless. One point in their favor is that I consider assiduous non-coverage of third party candidates to be inherently poor journalism, and they're probably the largest outlet that does this well.
While The Intercept is obviously on the left, I appreciate that they are willing to tell their fellow leftists unpleasant truths, and that they actually stand for civil liberties and against war even while most progressives stopped caring about these once Obama was inaugurated.
BBC News is usually not bad, unless it has to with firearms, in which case their bias lights up like Heathrow.
Other outlets depend on the topic. For example, I believe everything in the Washington Post that's not in the A section, but I don't trust them to report on anything involving macroeconomics or anything about Trump fairly. As much as I dislike him, any outlet that portrayed those 9am photos of the National Mall as indicative of his inauguration attendance is flat out lying.
Similarly, believe it or not on some things concerning U.S. policy I actually believe RT, not because I think RT is honest but because U.S. policymakers do enough ill-conceived and embarrassing things that RT has no reason to lie. But I categorically doubt them on anything about Russia, Ukraine, or Europe in general.
So "it depends", basically.
Ew, ew, ewww!
I know, I know. But am I wrong?
Women's marches should sing the "Oh Canada" circa 2014? How regressive...
Should be an interesting meet in Washington today.
I would love to be a fly on the wall. A shame it couldn't take place in the "War-Danger Room", though...
In fact, yes, yes you are. RT tries to lead your brain the certain way; out of simple hygiene, it's not a good idea to try to pick good bits of a rotten fish. Besides, your criteria sounds like "news are credible if they confirm my preconceived notions". It's worse than sticking to established media.
Same thing with "Big Pharma" - it's horribly corrupt, but sticking to what it peddles has a chance to save your life, while "alternative views" will very likely kill you. Of course, if you're not sick, you can argue any site - it won't affect YOU personally, but might kill that one small child with immunodeficit who got measles because antiwax hysteria (that you may have "liked" on Facebook) destroyed herd immunity, and a couple of dozen like him. RT-supported information garbage is similar.
I can't comment on RT content specifically because I refuse to consume anything under such a brand, but I know a thing or two about Russian propaganda in general. Take Ukraine. It is a dysfunctional, corrupt state, helmed by very flawed individuals (just take President Poroshenko and his very, very clear conflicts of interest, and his instincts of a successful oligarch). Yet a wall of negative coverage on Ukraine in Russian media consists 99% (maybe even proverbial 146%) of lies, horrible lies, and grotesquely horrible lies. Peruse stopfake.org for a few examples. So if you rely on Sputnik or RT for "the other side of the story"...
Or you can tell me I'm wrong. But you have to pick one.
Well, we want to succeed, don't we? I'm very open to changing the "all thy sons" line; in fact I support it. Should have been done in a very noncontroversial way long time ago.
Here is how a great man did it back in the day:
Separate names with a comma.