krutov

michael knight and bad teammate are no longer the worst posters on shaggy.

can you honestly say that if trump had permanently reduced the number of russian diplomats down to 395 and then the state department had complained to the media that this resulted in a critical shortage of us staff in russia when the russians mirrored that, that you wouldn't call trump an idiot for that too? my point is you hear a superficial poorly researched story and you jump to the conclusion it supports your bias against trump. now you are invested in that take and digging in to defend that position when you do not have a fucking clue whether it was a good decision or a bad one by trump. that is exactly what fake news is intended to do. what's the difference? i have zero idea why trump didn't reduce the number permanently. perhaps it was a fuck up. my point is that with 5 minutes of research and i can find context to that story that was not being reported. i don't trust the media to tell me the whole story, and i wait before i jump. you shouldn't either. whether it is deliberate spin or the product of the shrinking resources available to news outlets and the credulous kids writing stories today, the news we hear today is shit.

and yet you have no idea what the chad fuck you are talking about. no socks. no shaggy history except under this username. sometimes a lurker is just a lurker.

go back to what is left of shaggy. i registered in about 2012 and lurked before that. you can check my posts. if i am a russian bot i must be a sleeper bot recently activated.

You do understand that it's about time to stop giving a fuck about Russia, right? Of course you don't... You're probably a bitch-ass Russian. i do understand you have no answer to the substance of what i said so you're going ad hominem

let's just say that's a rather charitable characterization of the journolist story, and leave it at that. as for the sinclair story, it depends on the script. the script in question was an apolitical editorial statement by the organization. sort of like putting "democracy dies in darkness" on your banner when a republican gets elected: it betrays a partisan leaning but still commits to telling the truth. pretty much all you can ask of a news organization. just an fyi that i mostly lurked on shaggy for over five years. i am posting now because i cannot believe how full of shit the hugo gang has become since the transfer. as much as i disagree with most of what you say, i don't put you in that category, but i do put that post in that category.

i'm going to go ahead and guess you have zero idea how many diplomats the united states needs in russia in order to serve and protect your nation's interest. for reference though, apparently the obama administration thought that number was 1210 but now there are 455. and do you even cold war bro? this is par for the course.

uh, they were journalists and editors of national standing discussing how to shape and present facts in a coordinated fashion for partisan effect. which is 10,000 times worse than a trite self-serving blurb devoid on any actual content given to a bunch of ron burgundys to read out on their local news broadcasts. you think the folks reporting on local tv news are shaping the national conversation?

funny you should mention rails. how do you feel about john sherman making statements like this? "If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life." i bet union pacific shareholders took a beating.

no, it's the stupidest media ever. zero memory, analysis or context before running with a story. and twitter feeding the outrage hungry just makes it stupider. five minutes of googling reveals that when obama expelled 35 diplomats last year he also permanently reduced the russian diplomatic mission to 455. the russians eventually retaliated by expelling 755 us diplomats to get the us number down to 455 also. i am not a journalist or anything, but, i guess that move by obama backfired for america. and i guess maybe the us diplomats in russia do not want to go down to 395. just a guess though. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/russia-us-diplomats-expulsions/556985/

seriously? sinclair is an old fashioned third rate broadcast group straight out of the 70s. local tv stations have been using lame packaged content like that for decades. how is that concerning to anyone?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/

can you explain how that is not a false equivalency? greenburg is complaining about what he alleges is a pattern of corrections in a particular direction. he's not complaining about the fact media make mistakes and issue corrections. he's also complaining about a much bigger and fundamental error in a story by cnn compared to the error in his publication. i see no double standard. explain it to me.

can you explain how that script defends trump or is inaccurate? those stations may or may not be pro-trump in content, but the script you are complaining about appears to be 100% accurate and apolitical.