US intelligence: Russia plans to attack Ukraine early next year

Over policing is an entirely different matter. Perhaps a discussion topic for the future. My interest here is the concept of a Thought Police. '1984' and 'Fahrenheit 451' kind of stuff.
Having spent perhaps way too much time working for and with attorneys, I've learnt to avoid hypotheticals. Though yours is a good one, I'm skipping it. I will, however, stand on this: Again, no matter the righteousness of the decision Makers, attempting to police the thoughts of others is a nonstarter with me.

 

Now I'm laughing at you. I will not have you or anyone else proscribe what I chose to read.

 

I suspect that the vast majority of links to articles in Sputnik News are planted on social media by the Internet Research Agency in Russia. Where did Charles get this link? Now assuming that Charles does not normally read the Sputnik News for his news consumption, it follows that Charles is likely a gullible victim of the Russian disinformation campaign being waged against Americans on social media. If so Charles, I suggest that you would be much better served by subscribing to a reputable news source rather than prowling the sewers of social media for your information on the world.

 

Actually, I monitor RT both broadcast and Internet as part of my daily news consumption. I have for years. Currently RT's Website is blocked for me but, if I go to Sputnick first I can get right on to RT.com.

 

Your situation is far worse than I had imagined.

 

I've never played victim. Honestly, that's someone else's M.O. Not to be pedantic but, yes in this very thread people have proscribed Sputnick News.

 

I read Global Times pretty regularly. Not that I expect to find anything of value in its news but the opinion pieces tell me what the collective thinking of the Chinese Communist Party is on any given subject. Know your enemies, people!

(I haven't yet extended this wisdom to Tucker. My stomach has limits.)

 

Depends on your definition of proscribe, I guess. No one is telling you you can't read Sputnik (not Sputnick) News. I was trying to warn you that Sputnik News cannot be trusted. Well the only thing that you can trust about Sputnik News is that anything said in there is something that Khuylo Putin wants you to believe is true. It has no relevance to what may or may not actually be true.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sputnik-news-agency-italia-bias/

 

QUOTE="Stanislav, post: 566032, member: 1398"]Sputnik News is a freaking enemy propaganda outlet, working for Kremlin openly out to harm "the West". Including and especially your country. It is not OK to check the local weather forecast from them, even if they source it from NOAA like everyone else.
- your Captain Obvious.[/QUOTE]

 

I think it can be a good idea to occasionally read "bad" sources, like perhaps Sputnik news, just so you're aware of what the other side is actually believing (rather than what your side says that the other side believes). So long as you realize it's all nonsense.

 

[QUOTE="nosborne48, post: 566076, member:

(I haven't yet extended this wisdom to Tucker. My stomach has limits.)[/QUOTE]
Here's a case where I don't understand the hate. Do Do Do you know what it is about him that makes so many voluntarily give away their sanity. I only watch him occasionally. Primarily because my news consumption/analysis has ended before his show begins.

 

Dude, maybe you should play the victim. Years of exposure to RT, oh my... Why would you do that to yourself?

Stating the obvious, again: RT and Sputnik are not news sources. Not even biased news sources. They are straight-up, Kremlin-funded, propaganda venues. There is no, none, reasons to make oneself target of these, unless you're paid do do it OR your Siberian village only has reception of ORT (in this case, you are not watching English-language Russia Today though).
Last time I watched a significant portion of Russian media was in 2008, in a house of someone with limited English stills used to Russian infosphere. It was intense already in these relatively peaceful times. More recently? I can't force myself to endure more than 30 seconds of it, whether in Russian, RT English, news, talk shows, even entertainment. Revolting.

 

Tucker's pure evil. There. I used to hate watch the dude, but it's too much; my blood pressure gets dangerously high. The guy produces the same type of content and uses the same tricks as the most notorious Russian propagandists, like Dmitry Kiselyov or Vladimir Solovyov. He's the big reason I can't even watch Fox News now, even though presumably their coverage of the war is not any worse than most other outlets. Just the association makes me nervous.

 

Tucker Carlson makes my skin crawl. It's hard to watch even the clips that get shared on social media. I can't imagine watching him long enough to actually find something to clip.

 

Right. To add fuel to the fire (as if any was needed) I just found out Tucker Carlson is paid $6 million a year by Fox. Enough for a good few doctors, quite a LOT of health workers, maybe 3-4 dozen professors, many skilled tradespeople who make and repair stuff for us --

Yeah, I can think of a LOT better places for $6M to be spent each year. We should make a list...

 

He doesn't even needs the money. He's a heir to Swanson Frozen Foods fortune.

 

Again, we diverge on opinion. I congratulate anyone who legally commands whatever income they can collect. I argue it's no others business what they do with it. The Tax Man does enough of that already. I just entered "Highest Paid Athletes" into my search engine. I was very surprised to read who is currently at the top of the list. Wow! thought I but, good for him!

 

Yes, frequently. The Lord may have "commanded me to love you," as you say, Charles -- but He didn't command me to listen to you.