How many of these can you read until fatigue starts to overwhelm you? I got to 80 and had to peek ahead to find out how many more there were. Let’s say half of the “lies” by the NeoCon-infiltrated western media are lies. Would you still agree that the propaganda is out of control?
@Syskatine
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
He doesn't cite a single source, Dan. Not one. Not a source for the supposed "lie" or a source for the "truth." For instance, I saw a news story last week where a cute blond, british reporter had a handfull of microchips supposedly taken from russian equipment, and sure appeared to not be russian. Usually people source or show the facts in some way, if they're saying someone else's facts are wrong. She was just... lying?
You should use the name, Confirmation Bias Dan.
Oh, I gave it a chance and skipped around a little bit.
Strange how you ignore facts from credible journalists and focus on that kind of shoddy stuff. A list.
You’re a hoot, Sys. You read the first “lie” and got so triggered you couldn’t go on. The NeoCons levy a charge which you accept on faith because a “cute blond, british reporter had a handful of microchips *supposedly taken from Russian equipment*” (What equipment? Where did the cute reporter come by all those chips?), and since they didn’t look “Russian” on your tv screen you accept without equivocation that your cute reporter is a credible journalist. And to top it off the author of the link is chastised for not sourcing proof that the lie is a lie, while you merrily accept the lie without demanding proof from your credible journalists. By the way one anecdotal handful of microchips that “don’t look Russian” on your tv screen is hardly evidence that Russia cannot find enough chips to use on its armanents.
How about this: your credible journalists dutifully reported that Putin has Alzheimers and wasn’t long for this world. What was the source from your credible journalists? Is the author of the link supposed to come up with a doctor’s report that Putin doesn’t have Alzheimers to prove it’s a lie? Or is it incumbent on your credible journalists to show the doctor’s report that he does?
Hell, Sys, for the sake of argument I even conceded that possibly half the “lies” were true, and you still can’t comprehend the depth to which the MIC has manipulated you.
There you go again -- who said this? I've never read this. Link, please?
The guy is criticized for posting a fantasy, uncited list, and you respond with this? Dan, the rest of the world outside your anarchy libertarian, booger-eating world likes facts and not propoganda. Show me who said PUtin has alzhemers.
That was one of 108 purported lies, Sys. And for the record I know of no libertarian that eats boogers; if one exists he would be the only one. And once again, you're insisting the author prove a negative. When a NeoCon-infiltrated organization tells you things like Russia is losing the artillery battle 4 to 1 maybe you should think you are being propagandized.
No, I pushed back that he did nto provide a citation for, by sake of example, this:
- The Russian MIC cannot manufacture semiconductors. All their semiconductors are obtained via the black market from western sources. Or Iran. Or China. Or North Korea (all of whom are themselves under sanctions!).
- The Russian microchip industry doesn't exist (But the Russians can build things with black market American chips that even the Japanese can't build)
- The Russian microchip industry has collapsed (How something that doesn't exist "collapses" I am not sure, but there you are)
Your guy said all this, and it's not a 'negative" - it's a positive assertion.
One of 108 "lies" was that Russia cannot produce semiconductors. Prove it. Prove that Russia cannot produce semiconductors. It's not up to anyone to prove the opposite. It's up to the one making the assertion to prove it. That was one of 108 purported "lies." It's not up to anyone who points out all 108 lies from the last two years to prove they're lies. This particular website, which is pro-Russian by the way, has disproven the lies one at a time over the months. It is not up to them to rehash their disprovals of 108 lies in one article. Just posting the lot of them for everyone to see is all you need to see. It's up to you to prove they're wrong.
That's not a lie, it is an unproven assertion.
It would be quite easy to prove that someone in the western media said that, and that Russia can produce semis, if it is indeed true.
The claim that is it is a lie is an unproven assertion itself.
Last edited:
Well, why would I prove it? I'm not sure that anybody has said that Russia can't make semiconductors. I'm asking you who alleged that. Your guy said the western media has said that the russians can't produce semiconductors. Who said that?
The next question will be, assuming you have a legitimate point, is whether Russia can make superconductors.
Putin's bizarre memory lapse sparks "dementia" rumors
There has been much speculation about the Russian leader's health since he invaded Ukraine.
www.newsweek.com
Does Vladimir Putin have cancer, Parkinson's or dementia?
Vladimir Putin is a medical miracle. Over the past few months, the Russian leader has been remotely diagnosed with enough diseases to fill a textbook. And yet, somehow, he staggers on. In recent weeks Putin, 69, has been described by political commentators as “aged” and “ashen and bloaty”, with...
unherd.com
Now you can’t say you’ve never heard the rumors/lies.
Last edited:
Where's the lie Dan?
Putin's bizarre memory lapse sparks "dementia" rumors
There has been much speculation about the Russian leader's health since he invaded Ukraine.
Does Vladimir Putin have cancer, Parkinson's or dementia?
Vladimir Putin is a medical miracle. Over the past few months, the Russian leader has been remotely diagnosed with enough diseases to fill a textbook. And yet, somehow, he staggers on. In recent weeks Putin, 69, has been described by political commentators as “aged” and “ashen and bloaty”, with...
Now you can’t say you’ve never heard the rumors/lies.
I know you don't like being baselessly called a liar.
Yeah, we should definitely take the word of the American Commerce Secretary on the inner workings of Russia’s military hardware in the heat of a war instigated by the American government against that same military. But I get it. Now that you’ve become a Democrat establishment pawn instead of the rebel you once claimed to be, of course you believe it no questions asked. The alleged failure of Russia to produce their own semiconductors is one example of 108 that our NeoCon brethren have given to show Russia is badly losing the war. (Except that it isn’t.)
The lie, Pilt, the lie is the implied presumption that Russia doesn’t produce enough semiconductors to carry out the war long term, which is now shown to be a complete fabrication (otherwise the war would already be over and Russia would have lost). Russia is doing just fine producing and acquiring semiconductors from China, which has always been the case. The lie, Pilt, the lie is the innuendo that the US, which supplies Ukraine with every instrument of war it uses, produces all the semiconductors it needs for the prosecution of the war, when in fact it imports semiconductors as well. The lie, Pilt, the lie comes from the insinuation that Russia cannot win the war because it doesn’t have access to enough semiconductors. That’s one of 108 lies the NeoCon-infiltrated western media has parroted on behalf of the American War Machine which keeps dupes like Syskatine (and you, too, apparently) cheering for the death and destruction.
Let's take a look. Who is the liar here? The MSM? Or the official whose testimony they are reporting on? Did the official tell a lie or did infer a lie? There is no such thing as an implied lie. An implied lie is when some says something that isn't a lie and your mind makes up something that is a lie. If you are sick of be implied lied to so much, just simply turn down your inference dial. But let's look at if the implied lie is even a lie:
If the implication (made recently) is that "Russia doesn’t produce enough semiconductors to carry out the war long term," how does the fact that the war has lasted a year and a half render that a complete fabrication? Is year and a half long term? Why don't we ask the official what they meant by long term? Oh long term is your wording not the official's (see the problem). Either way it stretches credulity that the official would testify that Russia can't fight the war for longer than 18 months without making that explicit (that would be a big deal, and fantastic news)
Did anyone say that besides you? Do you know that statement to be false?
Well so far after looking at one so called lie they are 0-1. That doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in the other 107
I love that because I know what a lie is I am now pro-war
Well, lets take a look at who’s confused, Pilt. You’re good at altering words that are used so you can strike down a straw man. The words i used were “implied presumption” not implied lie. Let me use an example in a different context. I have a granddaughter that can be hilarious when she wants to be. She’ll say something funny and then give a look that says “You’re getting this aren’t you? This is funny!” She presumes I can see how funny it is, but she can’t say so or it ruins the humor. That’s an implied presumption. In this case the war monger made a claim the Russia can’t produce enough semiconductors. The implication is Russia therefore cannot win the war. But she can’t say that, she knows it’s a lie, but saying it would ruin what she’s leading you to believe. So instead the liar arches an eyebrow, slightly tilts her head forward and give you a look that says “You’re following the train of thought, aren’t you? It means Russia will lose, so you should continue to support our support of the proxy war as long as it takes.” That’s kinda how the best propaganda, the best manipulation takes place. They’ve persuaded you to accept the unspoken lie by leading you down the path they create.
Dan, he's obviously sick, he has like a football field-long table to distance himself from people his hand trembles if he doesn't keep it pinned against something, he sits in awkward positions, and he doesn't appear in public nearly as often as he used to. Are you suggesting that he's just fine, and has no health issues? I'm tryign to identify the unfair, biased journalism here. You're saying... what, he's hunky dory??
Putin's bizarre memory lapse sparks "dementia" rumors
There has been much speculation about the Russian leader's health since he invaded Ukraine.
Does Vladimir Putin have cancer, Parkinson's or dementia?
Vladimir Putin is a medical miracle. Over the past few months, the Russian leader has been remotely diagnosed with enough diseases to fill a textbook. And yet, somehow, he staggers on. In recent weeks Putin, 69, has been described by political commentators as “aged” and “ashen and bloaty”, with...
Now you can’t say you’ve never heard the rumors/lies.
Just sad. He makes legit points and you stick your head in the sand with a flippant remark. Your little narrative went nowhere. We focused on that booger-eater's list and right out of the gate the guy is wrong.
It's like you're evangelizing this shit to convince YOURSELF of something.
You called the implied presumption a lie!
The claim made was that Russia can't produce "enough" semiconductors? I don't think so. Even so is that a lie?
That implication is purely in your head! If stating the fact that Russia is not good at producing semiconductors makes you think that Russia can't win a war that's a you problem! A more reasonable person might infer instead that sanctions have made things difficult for Russia to maintain production levels due to supply chain problems, and thus the sanctions are having their intended effect.
Even so is that implication in your head itself even a lie? Or is it just an implication you are opposed to?
Is "Russia will lose" a lie? Do you know the outcome?
For someone that doesn't like being called a liar you are throwing around accusations on the flimsiest pretenses.
You seem to be intentionally missing the context even after I made the context clear.
The claim was that Russia can't make enough semiconductors. The implication (the lie) is "therefore Russia can't win." The implication was in the head of the liar with the intent to have "plausible deniability" when she gets called out. Which you have dutifully done on her behalf once the author of the link called the lie for what it was.
Yes, "Russia will lose" is a lie, a big fat lie.
I am throwing around accusations based on 50-55 years of understanding liars like the NeoCons. Flimsy pretenses is exactly what liars intend to defend themselves with.
Last edited:
Dude, you'd think after your thought leaders were so wrong about the invasion -- just 100% wrong -- you'd question them a little more.
That's a good one, Sys, my "thought leaders." Tell me, who are these thought leaders?
Mind reading now.
Can I get next month's lotto numbers while you have your crystal ball out?
Neocon lies: Iraq has WMD, Saddam was involved in 911, the weapons are going to moderate rebels, Iran is weeks away from a bomb, Iran is the leading sponsor of terrorism
Neocons being wrong but not actually lying: we will be welcomed as liberators, the surge will work, we can bring democracy to the Middle East
Some commerce department stooge stating facts: Russia isn't good at producing semiconductors
The stooge stated the "fact" inplying that means Russia can't win the war, which makes the implication a lie. NeoCons lie. Daily. Hourly. They are very good at it. Then they get people like you to defend their lies and pretend they aren't "really" lies. It reminds me of socialists saying another failed socialist state didn't practice "real" socialism.
You're a comedian! And to think to my great embarrassment I used to take you seriously.
