4 ms·

Those are obviously-partisan opinion articles by a self-described "rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper." Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the in

Those are obviously-partisan opinion articles by a self-described "rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper." Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community (and Obama and John McCain and the Dutch government and even Mitch McConnell) on this one. [edit: added adjectives, and the Dutch because they deserve it]

13years 9y ago
> Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community on this one Because they have proven such integrity? I still remember the pictures being shown on TV from our intelligence community of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
- outsidetheparty 9y ago
  Granted. (You're conflating the "intelligence community" with the "Bush administration," which is a little iffy, but I take your point.) And if this were just one source, or just one agency, or even just one political party, I might be more skeptical. (My usual routine when a story seems questionable is to check a source with the opposite political bias. If Fox and the WaPo both say something happened, I'm much more likely to believe that it did.) Not for nothing, but: "The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation... is to undermine the official version of events — even the very idea that there is a true version of events" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-swede... Seems like it's working.
  - 13years 9y ago
    It wasn't just one source during the Bush administration either. It was both parties. Also, we supposedly shared our 'intelligence' with other Nations which all were convinced it was legit. We are quite good at propaganda also http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-b...
    - outsidetheparty 9y ago
      We already have one can of worms open, I have no interest in opening another can by relitigating the entirety of the Bush/Iraq years; they were exhausting enough to live through the first time around. I'll happily concede that the US engages in propaganda, and leave it at that. (Well, not "happily", but you know what I mean.)
  - smsm42 9y ago
    It's definitely working - US political system is whipping itself into frenzy over "collusion" conspiracy theories while Putin comfortably arranges yet another rigged "election" for himself with no real opposition, suppresses dissent and imprisons anybody who dares to challenge him - and US can not even squeak a word about it since we're in the midst of declaring anybody from foreign country speaking about anything happening in another country to be a crime! If Putin indeed have foreseen it, and executed on this plan from a start, he's kinda genius. Or he's just lucky US politics happened to be insane in a way that benefits him.
    - outsidetheparty 9y ago
      Oh dear; now you've made me regret calling you "thoughtful" earlier. In one short paragraph you've changed the subject from Russian election interference to the separate issue of Trump's collusion; you've characterized that collusion as a "conspiracy theory" for no apparent reason; somehow you've decided it's to blame for the rigged voting process within the Russian not-a-democracy; and I have no idea what the bizarre "declaring anybody from foreign country speaking about anything happening in another country to be a crime" is in reference to, if anything at all. Impressive! But I'll give you this one: > [Putin]'s just lucky US politics happened to be insane in a way that benefits him. That's right on the nose.
      - smsm42 9y ago
        > In one short paragraph you've changed the subject from Russian election interference to the separate issue of Trump's collusion I am glad you are able to see it as two issues. 99% of the press isn't. > you've characterized that collusion as a "conspiracy theory" Which it most definitely is, by definition - it's a theory (with no factual basis after two years of investigation) and it's about a conspiracy. What is it if not conspiracy theory? > somehow you've decided it's to blame for the rigged voting process within the Russian not-a-democracy I decided nothing of the sort. Of course US craziness is not to blame for Russian fake elections. But US craziness makes it harder for US to point to Russians that they just had fake elections, because Russians would say "didn't you just said telling other people about their elections is criminal? So please do shut up". US just shot itself in the foot on this one, and for no good reason whatsoever. > I have no idea what the bizarre "declaring anybody from foreign country speaking about anything happening in another country to be a crime" is in reference to Oh, you do have an idea, drop the pretense. You are perfectly aware what I am referring to, you just like to pretend it's not what it is saying. But, unfortunately, it is.
coldtea 9y ago
>Those are opinion articles by a self-described "rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper." I was pointing to the arguments -- could not care less if Humpty Dumpty wrote them. >Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community (and Obama and John McCain and even Mitch McConnell) on this one. I'd just call you gullible. If one actually wants to get out of the establishment bubble, that's the last source they'd want to slide with. But of course they have such a great track record for people to be trusting them, from Operation Mockingbird to the Contras, WMDs, lying about surveillance, and so on...
- outsidetheparty 9y ago
  OK. So if I'm following, we're supposed to disbelieve the intelligence community, the security researchers, leaders from both political parties, the Dutch government, and basically every reputable news outlet in the world. But the rogue prepper lady, she's got the goods, because she's outside the "establishment bubble". Look, I'm no fan of the CIA, I share the frustration with not being able to see the classified evidence first-hand, and I'm all for skepticism when it comes to source bias and motivation. But when your argument boils down to literally everyone of significance is lying except for Donald Trump, that's no longer something that can be described as "skepticism".
  - 13years 9y ago
    Yes, because it has happened before. We even had other countries confirm our conclusions before and it was still wrong. I don't mean to say, it is definitely wrong, but I can't agree that is is almost certainly right either due to these same parties have all lied before. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information-saddam-wmds-iraq-chilcot https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies...

13years 9y ago

> Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community on this one Because they have proven such integrity? I still remember the pictures being shown on TV from our intelligence community of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

outsidetheparty 9y ago
Granted. (You're conflating the "intelligence community" with the "Bush administration," which is a little iffy, but I take your point.) And if this were just one source, or just one agency, or even just one political party, I might be more skeptical. (My usual routine when a story seems questionable is to check a source with the opposite political bias. If Fox and the WaPo both say something happened, I'm much more likely to believe that it did.) Not for nothing, but: "The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation... is to undermine the official version of events — even the very idea that there is a true version of events" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-swede... Seems like it's working.
- 13years 9y ago
  It wasn't just one source during the Bush administration either. It was both parties. Also, we supposedly shared our 'intelligence' with other Nations which all were convinced it was legit. We are quite good at propaganda also http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-b...
  - outsidetheparty 9y ago
    We already have one can of worms open, I have no interest in opening another can by relitigating the entirety of the Bush/Iraq years; they were exhausting enough to live through the first time around. I'll happily concede that the US engages in propaganda, and leave it at that. (Well, not "happily", but you know what I mean.)
- smsm42 9y ago
  It's definitely working - US political system is whipping itself into frenzy over "collusion" conspiracy theories while Putin comfortably arranges yet another rigged "election" for himself with no real opposition, suppresses dissent and imprisons anybody who dares to challenge him - and US can not even squeak a word about it since we're in the midst of declaring anybody from foreign country speaking about anything happening in another country to be a crime! If Putin indeed have foreseen it, and executed on this plan from a start, he's kinda genius. Or he's just lucky US politics happened to be insane in a way that benefits him.
  - outsidetheparty 9y ago
    Oh dear; now you've made me regret calling you "thoughtful" earlier. In one short paragraph you've changed the subject from Russian election interference to the separate issue of Trump's collusion; you've characterized that collusion as a "conspiracy theory" for no apparent reason; somehow you've decided it's to blame for the rigged voting process within the Russian not-a-democracy; and I have no idea what the bizarre "declaring anybody from foreign country speaking about anything happening in another country to be a crime" is in reference to, if anything at all. Impressive! But I'll give you this one: > [Putin]'s just lucky US politics happened to be insane in a way that benefits him. That's right on the nose.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      > In one short paragraph you've changed the subject from Russian election interference to the separate issue of Trump's collusion I am glad you are able to see it as two issues. 99% of the press isn't. > you've characterized that collusion as a "conspiracy theory" Which it most definitely is, by definition - it's a theory (with no factual basis after two years of investigation) and it's about a conspiracy. What is it if not conspiracy theory? > somehow you've decided it's to blame for the rigged voting process within the Russian not-a-democracy I decided nothing of the sort. Of course US craziness is not to blame for Russian fake elections. But US craziness makes it harder for US to point to Russians that they just had fake elections, because Russians would say "didn't you just said telling other people about their elections is criminal? So please do shut up". US just shot itself in the foot on this one, and for no good reason whatsoever. > I have no idea what the bizarre "declaring anybody from foreign country speaking about anything happening in another country to be a crime" is in reference to Oh, you do have an idea, drop the pretense. You are perfectly aware what I am referring to, you just like to pretend it's not what it is saying. But, unfortunately, it is.

coldtea 9y ago

>Those are opinion articles by a self-described "rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper." I was pointing to the arguments -- could not care less if Humpty Dumpty wrote them. >Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community (and Obama and John McCain and even Mitch McConnell) on this one. I'd just call you gullible. If one actually wants to get out of the establishment bubble, that's the last source they'd want to slide with. But of course they have such a great track record for people to be trusting them, from Operation Mockingbird to the Contras, WMDs, lying about surveillance, and so on...

outsidetheparty 9y ago
OK. So if I'm following, we're supposed to disbelieve the intelligence community, the security researchers, leaders from both political parties, the Dutch government, and basically every reputable news outlet in the world. But the rogue prepper lady, she's got the goods, because she's outside the "establishment bubble". Look, I'm no fan of the CIA, I share the frustration with not being able to see the classified evidence first-hand, and I'm all for skepticism when it comes to source bias and motivation. But when your argument boils down to literally everyone of significance is lying except for Donald Trump, that's no longer something that can be described as "skepticism".
- 13years 9y ago
  Yes, because it has happened before. We even had other countries confirm our conclusions before and it was still wrong. I don't mean to say, it is definitely wrong, but I can't agree that is is almost certainly right either due to these same parties have all lied before. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information-saddam-wmds-iraq-chilcot https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies...