Honestly, i think I’m just holding a silly grudge.
Two weeks ago I quoted a gangster movie and you tried to dis me by saying “stay off social media.” Whatever, I’ve heard worse.
Then last week you quoted a gangster movie and posted some social media BS like it was news. Like you did exactly what you accused me of.
So, whatever.
Then last week, you told me to “educate myself” with the video. Which is fine, but clearly you didn’t know much about Greenwald.
Cool, we’ve both got stuff to learn.
Finally, you come back today quoting wikipedia, and you clearly had to read the sections I quoted to get to the sections you quoted. Like you willfully didn’t educate yourself.
I wouldn’t have a problem referring to the people illegally entering the nation as cockroaches. Some who have come legally, like Ilhan Omar, well, I wouldn’t insult roaches that way.
You say weird stuff w/o reference, and I have no clue what you’re talking about. Remember, I’m old.
I don’t agree with many of Greenwald’s opinions. But, the guy presents facts before he makes his conclusions/opinions. Facts that a “side” usually chooses to ignore. Like our resident PR professional who started this silly thread. Greenwald represented people he probably disagrees with/dislikes because he thinks they’ve been wronged? -isn’t that the definition of being impartial?
I googled Manning because I am ignorant of who she is, and I understand why Greenwald represented her:
“Manning says that when she joined the military, she was committed to the Army’s mission. But she became disillusioned while serving in Iraq, and regards her decision to leak classified documents as a matter of principle.”
“What was bothering me was I [had] years of training and years of believing in something and then hitting the ground and then seeing it and feeling completely unprepared for how different [it was],” Manning says. “I wanted that discrepancy to be addressed somehow.”
The leaked documents included a 2007 video in which a U.S. military crew aboard an Army Apache helicopter is shown shooting at Iraqi civilians and a Reuters journalist, after allegedly mistaking them for insurgents."
If Greenwald called her a hero, I disagree with him also.
The dude’s work got a Pulitzer when journalism was still a fairly reputable profession. To me, that counts for something more than some random dude painting a wannabe gangsta as a “HERO”. Hero, give me a fucking break, it’s flabbergasting.
Americans today criticizing our current border policies are talking about shooting the illegal aliens if necessary? Most “right wing” people are simply saying to only allow legal immigration. And now all the leftists in the big cities are pissed because our esteemed gov’t is diverting resources earmarked for actual citizens (hopefully) to illegal immigrants. Yeah, that’s pretty right wing all right.
I don’t think it’s right wing just as I wouldn’t call what Navalny was arguing against right wing, that is, Russia allowing Muslims in without vetting them. Trump was criticized for using a term like shit hole, calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and saying Mexico was sending us criminals. Navalny was a bit more “intense” but the message and motive was essentially the same. Today, what was once called patriotism, is labeled nationalism with all of the baggage that term brings with it.
As I’ve said repeatedly, I try to avoid all Trump rhetoric if possible.
But it is super ironic to me that the Biden administration lauds a guy like Navalny when they are doing as much to Trump as they possibly can for exactly the same thing -running for President. And Trump was an actual President…who is now being given none of the respect that ex-Presidents are supposed to get. If Trump was in Russia, he would’ve been Epsteined a long time ago.
I’m shocked this is/was true. Maybe they let them in as future fodder in any wars…in which case that is just forward thinking… Navalny not too bright there… Btw, in Russia, they can jail them w/o cause, right? So what’s the big deal.
Putin started a war that has probably already killed millions of people in order to hide his own corruption and satisfy his personal vanity. Yes, he is worse.
Putin is corrupt and willing to rob and kill for personal greed. Even if Navalny would have turned out the same after x years in power, Russia could at least a couple years of better time.
Yeltsin brought a couple of good years before he went bad. Putin brought a couple of good years before going bad. We should expect the same from some opposition leader that replaces Putin
Well, I wouldn’t necessarily say worst of all. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao exist. But being directly responsible for deaths into the 7 figures puts Putin in pretty sparse company for levels of evil. And yes, nothing else he has done really changes that.
Frankly, I wasn’t always as big of a critic of Putin as I am now. There was a period of time when a strong argument could be made that he was making the country better for the average Russian. Russia was in very bad shape in 2000 when Putin took over and lots of things improved. But murdering a bunch of people does tip the needle in the direction of evil quite heavily. The war was a turning point for many Russians (even those in relative positions of power and privilege in Russia) to see that they can’t go along with Putin anymore. Not sure why you think that mass murder is just another shade of gray.
If that were true, it would not excuse mass murder.
Putin has selectively forced oppositionists and known protestors into frontline roles attempting to get them killed. This, combined with literally millions of Russians leaving because they don’t agree with the war, has filtered the remaining population in Russia to be more pro-Putin that it would be otherwise.
Putin has blocked from the ballot all true opposition and even any sort of symbolic opposition candidates. For example, a little known candidate named Boris Nadezhdin was recently removed from the ballot without cause because he had managed to concentrate opposition support. He didn’t have a developed platform but was someone that the opposition could symbolically combine support around. It’s impossible to know what Putin’s real support is, but we do know that he manipulates public opinion polls, bars opposition from the ballot, and stuffs the ballot boxes on top of that. If he had 80% real support, I don’t know why he would be bothering with any of that.
