Quote:So RT isn't state-sponsored media that gives a voice to Western dissidents, Left and Right, but not Russian dissidents? You people can snark and joke and post emoticons all you like, but it's not a substitute for facts (which I've posted plenty of here, for those willing to read them).

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Quote:So RT isn't state-sponsored media that gives a voice to Western dissidents, Left and Right, but not Russian dissidents? You people can snark and joke and post emoticons all you like, but it's not a substitute for facts (which I've posted plenty of here, for those willing to read them).

Frankly, I'm not a big RT fan. I see it as the equivalent of mini-version of the NYTimes. For example, the battle of Russians for their lives in the Donbass has vanished. Disappeared, as the Kremlin wanted. I don't think RT is covering the Russian trucker strike. They got taxed to fix up the horrible Russian roads while the the oligarchs get more breaks. Navalny for example appears to be on the Kremlin payroll as a means to have a controlled opposition. Pissed off truckers are the real dissidents. Meanwhile, Putin sticks by the head of their national bank -- what's her name.

I am quite willing to say Trump is a gangster, but that he is a gangster among gangsters, the CIA and FBI are right up there. So when you think they are telling you the truth this time, you have to wonder about yourself. And you clearly won't go there.

I look at events through the lens of the spectacle. Debord says we are the society of the spectacle. There is an article online called the Spectacle of the False Flag. They are worth reading.

Quote:What does it all mean? Are Democrats more prone to believe uncorroborated politically-motivated rubbish than Republicans or are they just so blinded by their hatred for Trump that they'll accept any dirt the media dishes up?

Tracy Riddle Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Quote:So RT isn't state-sponsored media that gives a voice to Western dissidents, Left and Right, but not Russian dissidents? You people can snark and joke and post emoticons all you like, but it's not a substitute for facts (which I've posted plenty of here, for those willing to read them).

Frankly, I'm not a big RT fan. I see it as the equivalent of mini-version of the NYTimes. For example, the battle of Russians for their lives in the Donbass has vanished. Disappeared, as the Kremlin wanted. I don't think RT is covering the Russian trucker strike. They got taxed to fix up the horrible Russian roads while the the oligarchs get more breaks. Navalny for example appears to be on the Kremlin payroll as a means to have a controlled opposition. Pissed off truckers are the real dissidents. Meanwhile, Putin sticks by the head of their national bank -- what's her name.

I am quite willing to say Trump is a gangster, but that he is a gangster among gangsters, the CIA and FBI are right up there. So when you think they are telling you the truth this time, you have to wonder about yourself. And you clearly won't go there.

I look at events through the lens of the spectacle. Debord says we are the society of the spectacle. There is an article online called the Spectacle of the False Flag. They are worth reading.

I've read Guy Debord, thanks. I don't have to "trust" the CIA or FBI, or think they are the "good guys." There are no good guys in this whole mess. I don't know why some insist on viewing this in a binary way. We're just trying to determine what happened. Trump and his people are the most arrogant, stupid criminals ever to enter politics. Like Mike Flynn not realizing that his conversations and activities on behalf of foreign governments would somehow not be picked up by US intelligence? The stupid hurts!

By the way, can you provide a primary source for this Casey quote you're using? I strongly suspect it's a fake. There's another fake quote going around supposedly by William Colby, but it only traces back to Dave McGowan and not to any primary source.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William J. Casey, D.C.I

Lauren Johnson Wrote:I look at events through the lens of the spectacle. Debord says we are the society of the spectacle. There is an article online called the Spectacle of the False Flag. They are worth reading.

Cliff Varnell Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:I look at events through the lens of the spectacle. Debord says we are the society of the spectacle. There is an article online called the Spectacle of the False Flag. They are worth reading.

The Resistance is nothing if not spectacular at times, though not in the way Debord defined "spectacle."

The Women's Marches in major cities on Jan 21 '17 were truly spectacular non-violent public demonstrations.

The town hall meetings filled with raucous voters are mini-spectacles of public anger.

It's not France May '68 by a long shot but potent nonetheless.

Paul Rigby Wrote:

Cliff Varnell Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:I look at events through the lens of the spectacle. Debord says we are the society of the spectacle. There is an article online called the Spectacle of the False Flag. They are worth reading.

The Resistance is nothing if not spectacular at times, though not in the way Debord defined "spectacle."

The Women's Marches in major cities on Jan 21 '17 were truly spectacular non-violent public demonstrations.

The town hall meetings filled with raucous voters are mini-spectacles of public anger.

It's not France May '68 by a long shot but potent nonetheless.

I think you and Tracy would look great in a knitted pussy power hat, though not, I dare say, in the alternatives proposed by Holly Derr (a knitted imitation vagina, as far as I can make out) or Andi Zeisler, the co-founder of Bitch Media and author of We Were Feminists Once, who appears to have argued for witch hats ("We need to go full witch. We need to really scare some folks")*.

I wonder if the precise fashion choice shouldn't be entrusted to a panel comprising George Soros, some psycho from the CIA, and Rachel Maddow?

*http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a42152/pussyhat-project-knit-protest/

Liverpool Women's March sees hundreds gather at St George's Hall

Cliff Varnell Wrote:

Paul Rigby Wrote:

Cliff Varnell Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:I look at events through the lens of the spectacle. Debord says we are the society of the spectacle. There is an article online called the Spectacle of the False Flag. They are worth reading.

The Resistance is nothing if not spectacular at times, though not in the way Debord defined "spectacle."

The Women's Marches in major cities on Jan 21 '17 were truly spectacular non-violent public demonstrations.

The town hall meetings filled with raucous voters are mini-spectacles of public anger.

It's not France May '68 by a long shot but potent nonetheless.

I think you and Tracy would look great in a knitted pussy power hat, though not, I dare say, in the alternatives proposed by Holly Derr (a knitted imitation vagina, as far as I can make out) or Andi Zeisler, the co-founder of Bitch Media and author of We Were Feminists Once, who appears to have argued for witch hats ("We need to go full witch. We need to really scare some folks")*.

I wonder if the precise fashion choice shouldn't be entrusted to a panel comprising George Soros, some psycho from the CIA, and Rachel Maddow?

*http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a42152/pussyhat-project-knit-protest/

Nice to see all that Soros money pouring into Liverpool!

Liverpool Women's March sees hundreds gather at St George's Hall

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-womens-march-sees-hundreds-12487584

Tracy Riddle Wrote:"Get the picture? The whole case against Trump is based on a pile of unverified BS from some ex-MI-6 flunkey trying to make a killing off sexed up rumors of imaginary collusion."

My god, there is so much denial going on right now in the so-called alternative media, which is apparently plugged into Kelly-Anne Conway's "alternative facts." This author just ignores Steele's whole background on Russia and the multiple sources he has there, going back to the fall of the USSR:

From 1990 to 1992, Steele worked under diplomatic cover as an MI6 agent in Moscow, serving at the Embassy of the United Kingdom in Moscow.[SUP][9][/SUP] Steele's identity as an MI6 officer was one of 115 names Her Majesty's Government attempted to suppress through a DSMA-Notice in 1999.[SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP] Steele reportedly later served as head of MI6's Russia desk.[SUP][12][/SUP] He returned to London in 1993, working again at the FCO until his posting to Paris in 1998, where he served under diplomatic cover until 2002.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP] In 2003, Steele was sent to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan as part of an MI6 team, briefing Special Forces on "kill or capture" missions for Taliban targets, and also spent time teaching new MI6 recruits.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Steele's expertise on Russia remained valued, and he served as a senior officer under John Scarlett, Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), from 2004 to 2009.[SUP][12][/SUP] Steele was selected as case officer for Alexander Litvinenko and participated in the investigation of the Litvinenko poisoning in 2006.[SUP][9][/SUP] It was Steele who quickly realised that Litvinenko's death "was a Russian state 'hit'".[SUP][12][/SUP]

One of the Russians connected to the dossier may have been murdered:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/mystery-death-ex-kgb-chief-linked-mi6-spys-dossier-donald-trump/

And the whole case against Trump is not just based on the Steele dossier, as this delusional author wants us to believe. A lot of it is being dug up by the media, and much of the rest by the intelligence agencies. We'll see the whole story soon enough, and it won't be pretty.

Former NSA intelligence analyst John Schindler provided some insight into the reaction of national security officials. "Now we go nuclear," he wrote on Twitter. "[Intelligence community] war going to new levels. Just got an [email from] senior [intelligence community] friend, it began: He will die in jail.'" "US intelligence is not the problem here," Schindler added in another tweet. "The President's collusion with Russian intelligence is. Many details, but the essence is simple."