If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ProPublica)   Not News: The Huffington Post publishes Kremlin propaganda. News: Huffington Post readers are unaware they were reading Kremlin propaganda   (propublica.org) divider line 124
    More: Obvious, HuffPost, kremlin, President Vladimir Putin, Russia, Kremlin propaganda, Zsa Zsa, Russian Government, University of Kent  
•       •       •

12383 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Nov 2012 at 10:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-16 07:46:01 PM
This is gonna be a fun thread to watch
 
2012-11-16 07:50:10 PM

cman: This is gonna be a fun thread to watch


Not if everyone ignores the article from a biased source. And trollish headline....
 
2012-11-16 07:51:23 PM

Darth_Lukecash: cman: This is gonna be a fun thread to watch

Not if everyone ignores the article from a biased source. And trollish headline....


Is there really an unbiased source anywhere? And yeah, the trollish headline is pretty good
 
2012-11-16 08:32:38 PM

cman: Darth_Lukecash: cman: This is gonna be a fun thread to watch

Not if everyone ignores the article from a biased source. And trollish headline....

Is there really an unbiased source anywhere? And yeah, the trollish headline is pretty good


All reporting involves some bias- It's human nature. However, when the bias comes into play? If it comes after the reporting-that's one thing. If it's a pre-existing bias, then you are filtering reality quite wrong.
 
2012-11-16 08:43:46 PM
i1079.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-16 08:45:49 PM

Darth_Lukecash: cman: This is gonna be a fun thread to watch

Not if everyone ignores the article from a biased source. And trollish headline....


Here let me get some pliers, lets get that hook out of your mouth and get you back in the water sport
 
2012-11-16 10:17:00 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-16 10:17:09 PM
Хаффингтон пост
 
2012-11-16 10:19:15 PM

jim32rr: Darth_Lukecash: cman: This is gonna be a fun thread to watch

Not if everyone ignores the article from a biased source. And trollish headline....

Here let me get some pliers, lets get that hook out of your mouth and get you back in the water sport


snicker
 
2012-11-16 10:20:18 PM
Remind me again which of the parties had a candidate named Romney that invested in China, sent jobs to China, and got campaign funds from China?
 
2012-11-16 10:20:22 PM
"Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.
 
2012-11-16 10:21:29 PM
Nice try, Ivan
 
2012-11-16 10:25:58 PM
обе стороны плохо так голосуют за республиканцев
 
2012-11-16 10:26:21 PM
The problem with Communism isn't that it killed 80 million people, it just didn't kill the RIGHT 80 million people. It clearly needs a second chance.
 
2012-11-16 10:27:49 PM

nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.


Just like capitalism.
 
2012-11-16 10:27:54 PM
A repeated opinion is still just an opinion.
 
2012-11-16 10:28:24 PM

LoneWolf343: nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.

Just like capitalism.


And BINGO was his name ooooooh
 
2012-11-16 10:28:46 PM

cman: This is gonna be a fun thread to watch


I just want to see people vainly try to make Yakov Smirnoff jokes.
 
2012-11-16 10:30:12 PM
Phew! I'm glad that was made public so we can get back to the corporate-owned, corporate-inspired, corporate editorial that passes as "news" in America. I was getting worried there for a moment.
 
2012-11-16 10:30:37 PM

uselessgit: The problem with Communism isn't that it killed 80 million people, it just didn't kill the RIGHT 80 million people. It clearly needs a second chance.


OK. I chuckled at that.
 
2012-11-16 10:30:37 PM

jim32rr: Darth_Lukecash: cman: This is gonna be a fun thread to watch

Not if everyone ignores the article from a biased source. And trollish headline....

Here let me get some pliers, lets get that hook out of your mouth and get you back in the water sport


Yes, because replying to cmans futile attempt to get a troll thread running, is the same as actually reading the article and commenting on it.

And considering how many people have actually clicked/commented...it seems I was right.
 
2012-11-16 10:31:51 PM
In other news, Russia employs an American public relations firm.

placed on behalf of the Russian government by its public-relations firm, Ketchum.

So tell me, please, gloating Republitard white-knighters, should I be more upset that HuffPo published the articles, or that a US firm is shilling for Vladimir Putin's increasingly Stalinist government and raking in the rubles by doing so?
 
2012-11-16 10:36:05 PM
ITT: A vile rag funded by a "one percenter" living large off her unearned divorce proceeds, which regularly publishes outright propaganda and false "medical news" that deters the gullible from getting proper medical care, manages to spawn at least one defender.
 
2012-11-16 10:37:23 PM
"You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."

Or killing 8 million Ukrainians

Right comrades?
 
2012-11-16 10:40:04 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-16 10:42:27 PM

uselessgit: The problem with Communism isn't that it killed 80 million people, it just didn't kill the RIGHT 80 million people. It clearly needs a second chance.


No evil men killed 80 million people. Communism failed because because it relied on individual to act morally for the good of all. There was no selfish incentive for one to pull his/her own weight.

Capitalism only demands the individual look out for himself and selfishness is the engine that powers it.
 
2012-11-16 10:43:05 PM
Who cares? It's not like HufPo ever pretended to be a credible news source to begin with.

It's like complaining that TMZ lied about Lindsay Lohan's latest DUI.
 
2012-11-16 10:47:57 PM
I know that news publishers often have interests to publish things that may or may not be true. In the case of FoxNews, the entire network all day stilts each and every news story, often stating outright lies, in an effort to please one man in his eternal quest to be the world's biggest douchebag.

Obviously both sides are bad, but FoxNews is the absolute worst, most biased source on Earth and they have the audacity to say "Fair and Balanced". We know HuffPo and MSNBC are progressive news sources. They are unabashedly so. Some folks like listening to echo chambers so they can pick up their daily talking points and responses to "the other sides" talking points. However, you're not going to find any MSNBC viewer talking about how their shows are "fair and balanced" to both sides. You might find 1 out of 10 FoxNews viewers that admit their show is geared to a primarily conservative audience.
 
2012-11-16 10:48:21 PM
There's something else on HuffPo besides poorly working slideshows of random Twitter posts?
 
2012-11-16 10:52:34 PM
WTF? Half of my comment is gone. Awesome.
 
2012-11-16 10:57:25 PM

Shmeat: WTF? Half of my comment is gone. Awesome.


Which/whose comment would that be?
 
2012-11-16 11:07:29 PM
Oblig:

Gorbachev sings tractors: Turnips! Buttocks!
 
2012-11-16 11:10:19 PM
media.tumblr.com?
 
2012-11-16 11:11:39 PM
Hang on a minute

There are things on the HuffPo that AREN'T communist propaganda?
 
2012-11-16 11:12:18 PM

nmemkha: uselessgit: The problem with Communism isn't that it killed 80 million people, it just didn't kill the RIGHT 80 million people. It clearly needs a second chance.

No evil men killed 80 million people. Communism failed because because it relied on individual to act morally for the good of all. There was no selfish incentive for one to pull his/her own weight.

Capitalism only demands the individual look out for himself and selfishness is the engine that powers it.


It's all so simple!

Why didn't I think of that?
 
2012-11-16 11:14:37 PM

trivial use of my dark powers: Oblig:

Gorbachev sings tractors: Turnips! Buttocks!




Did I spot a gorbachev reference?
 
2012-11-16 11:17:26 PM
Kremlin propaganda? Meh, who cares? Stalin-era might give me some woozies, but not after.
 
2012-11-16 11:22:39 PM

kim jong-un: nmemkha: uselessgit: The problem with Communism isn't that it killed 80 million people, it just didn't kill the RIGHT 80 million people. It clearly needs a second chance.

No evil men killed 80 million people. Communism failed because because it relied on individual to act morally for the good of all. There was no selfish incentive for one to pull his/her own weight.

Capitalism only demands the individual look out for himself and selfishness is the engine that powers it.

It's all so simple!

Why didn't I think of that?


Ideologies are always simple and sound great on paper or from the podium. Its the implementations that are the problem.
 
2012-11-16 11:30:55 PM
I had a look around the Pro Publica website.

Reports on leaking pipelines, the failure of HUD to enforce the Fair Housing Act, Nursing home violatons, soldiers being unable to get combat records ... it's a bunch of Commies. We can't trust them. Them Commies must be lying about Russia using PR tactics worthy of, oh, I don't know, a corporation run by Republicans.

It's a TARP! No, wait. It's not that bad.

Anybody who hates hedgefunders, gerrymandering and BP can't be all bad.
 
2012-11-16 11:31:21 PM
I saw some kind of movie about the Kremlin once. This was the main character:

cache.io9.com
 
2012-11-16 11:32:39 PM

nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.


True that's one of the problems... but those tiny few political elite had their luxury lifestyle been dispersed equally would still have left the average soviet worker a pauper. Having seen some former com-block "luxury" items, I'd still rather be middle class in America during the 80s.

The fundamentals of communism just do not lend to growing living standards like free market capitalism.
 
2012-11-16 11:32:47 PM
in other news, op eds may contain propaganda
 
2012-11-16 11:38:04 PM

LoneWolf343: nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.

Just like capitalism.

~
But unlike capitalism, it was all about sharing. Remember that bit, smartass?

Shaaaaaring yaaaaaaaaay!!!! Complete clusterfark of a political system. Left wing politics grew out of that.
 
2012-11-16 11:39:21 PM

fusillade762: cman: This is gonna be a fun thread to watch

I just want to see people vainly try to make Yakov Smirnoff jokes.


At Daily KOS, Yakov Smirnoff joke makes YOU!
 
2012-11-16 11:42:57 PM
Dag sentence structure.
 
2012-11-16 11:43:24 PM

Big Ramifications: LoneWolf343: nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.

Just like capitalism.
~
But unlike capitalism, it was all about sharing. Remember that bit, smartass?

Shaaaaaring yaaaaaaaaay!!!! Complete clusterfark of a political system. Left wing politics grew out of that.


yeah... that was the point I think
 
2012-11-16 11:49:28 PM

Mrbogey: nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.

True that's one of the problems... but those tiny few political elite had their luxury lifestyle been dispersed equally would still have left the average soviet worker a pauper. Having seen some former com-block "luxury" items, I'd still rather be middle class in America during the 80s.

The fundamentals of communism just do not lend to growing living standards like free market capitalism.


Can't really compare them. Communism is a failed attempt to forge a system of government from socialism, which is merely a useful social tool.
Capitalism is just a way of making money, and as such, is a useful social tool. And like socialism, when elevated to the level of a system of government (Laissez-faire, or neoconservatism) it fails catastrophically - like communism. It failed catastrophically in the 1930s, and is about to again today. This time, I think we'll be luckier. With the boomers dying, and the immigrants coming, the political pendulum is swinging back toward a moderate, democratic system. Fortunately, the adults seem to be taking charge again.
 
2012-11-16 11:50:15 PM
Subby seems to have left out the noted communists at CNBC. I always suspected Kudlow was being blackmailed by the rooskies for all the blow and hookers to put the face of a douchebag on free market capitalism. I wonder what they have on Santelli...
 
2012-11-16 11:54:51 PM

cman: Is there really an unbiased source anywhere? And yeah, the trollish headline is pretty good


Honestly, it doesn't look like it to me. Google Amber Lyon and/or check her out on this podcast:

Link

In short: CNN airs paid programming from dictatorships.

Then again, it's fun to shout LIBTARDS or CONSERVATARDS! Maybe I'll accuse someone of being an Useful Idiot and then follow it with a bunch of talking points.
 
2012-11-16 11:56:20 PM
There's not much difference between Communism and Lassez-Faire capitalism, in practice. The robber-baron capitalism of the late 19th century closely resembled Maoism, in practice. Work farms and company towns surrounded with armed guards instructed to shoot workers who attempted to escape, company stores and housing, a huge, impoverished working class supporting a tiny elite who had the power of life and death over them. they might as well have been in Stalin's Russia.
 
2012-11-16 11:57:52 PM

thiazi: cman: Is there really an unbiased source anywhere? And yeah, the trollish headline is pretty good

Honestly, it doesn't look like it to me. Google Amber Lyon and/or check her out on this podcast:

Link

In short: CNN airs paid programming from dictatorships.

Then again, it's fun to shout LIBTARDS or CONSERVATARDS! Maybe I'll accuse someone of being an Useful Idiot and then follow it with a bunch of talking points.


It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. I'm damn proud of you, son.
 
2012-11-17 12:01:49 AM

jso2897: Mrbogey: nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.

True that's one of the problems... but those tiny few political elite had their luxury lifestyle been dispersed equally would still have left the average soviet worker a pauper. Having seen some former com-block "luxury" items, I'd still rather be middle class in America during the 80s.

The fundamentals of communism just do not lend to growing living standards like free market capitalism.

Can't really compare them. Communism is a failed attempt to forge a system of government from socialism, which is merely a useful social tool.
Capitalism is just a way of making money, and as such, is a useful social tool. And like socialism, when elevated to the level of a system of government (Laissez-faire, or neoconservatism) it fails catastrophically - like communism. It failed catastrophically in the 1930s, and is about to again today. This time, I think we'll be luckier. With the boomers dying, and the immigrants coming, the political pendulum is swinging back toward a moderate, democratic system. Fortunately, the adults seem to be taking charge again.


Well stated.
 
2012-11-17 12:04:30 AM

nmemkha: uselessgit: The problem with Communism isn't that it killed 80 million people, it just didn't kill the RIGHT 80 million people. It clearly needs a second chance.

No evil men killed 80 million people. Communism failed because because it relied on individual to act morally for the good of all. There was no selfish incentive for one to pull his/her own weight.

Capitalism only demands the individual look out for himself and selfishness is the engine that powers it.


8/10. You forgot to use the word "enlightened."
 
2012-11-17 12:07:31 AM

CujoQuarrel: Hang on a minute

There are things on the HuffPo that AREN'T communist propaganda?


I don't know about communist, but every time I open a browser window to the site, it leans distinctly to the left.
 
2012-11-17 12:07:50 AM

simkatu: I know that news publishers often have interests to publish things that may or may not be true. In the case of FoxNews, the entire network all day stilts each and every news story, often stating outright lies, in an effort to please one man in his eternal quest to be the world's biggest douchebag.

Obviously both sides are bad, but FoxNews is the absolute worst, most biased source on Earth and they have the audacity to say "Fair and Balanced". We know HuffPo and MSNBC are progressive news sources. They are unabashedly so. Some folks like listening to echo chambers so they can pick up their daily talking points and responses to "the other sides" talking points. However, you're not going to find any MSNBC viewer talking about how their shows are "fair and balanced" to both sides. You might find 1 out of 10 FoxNews viewers that admit their show is geared to a primarily conservative audience.


More likely to find a right-wing Fox-zombie saying something like "Fox tends to lean right, while CNN tends to lean left."

The derp! It burns!
 
2012-11-17 12:10:05 AM
Fox News, Nesbusters, Breitbart and all of those rags will go "Yee haw we got em! we told you they are commies!" I expect much eye rolling on my part seeing their freak out
 
2012-11-17 12:10:45 AM

Shmeat: WF Hf o m comt i gn. Aesm.



FTFY.
 
2012-11-17 12:10:56 AM
Drtfa. But it had precedent. Much of the frivelous theories that wound up in JFK were originally planted by pro-Moscow newspapers in the West, issued by the Kremlin. We know this because they released the archive.
 
2012-11-17 12:11:52 AM

Big Ramifications: LoneWolf343: nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.

Just like capitalism.
~
But unlike capitalism, it was all about sharing. Remember that bit, smartass?

Shaaaaaring yaaaaaaaaay!!!! Complete clusterfark of a political system. Left wing politics grew out of that.


It grew into just taking and spending money you don't have.
 
2012-11-17 12:13:26 AM

brantgoose: I had a look around the Pro Publica website.


Actually, Pro Publica is one of the last bastions of great investigative reporting.The people they've brought on are pretty much a "who's who" of investigative reporters and editors.

Founded back in 2007ish when papers were axing their "projects" teams left and right, remember a lot of laughter and speculation about how an online non-profit without an associated outlet was going to make it, but damned if they didn't pull it off.
 
2012-11-17 12:14:34 AM
I have no idea what's going on in that article, or in this thread - and I'm posting in it anyway!
 
2012-11-17 12:15:24 AM
So the progressive rag Huffington Puffington post gave the writers desk to some socialist propaganda in exchange for a profit, then says, "it doesn't violate our terms."

Anyone else smell the hypocrisy?
 
2012-11-17 12:18:12 AM

ChuDogg: Big Ramifications: LoneWolf343: nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.

Just like capitalism.
~
But unlike capitalism, it was all about sharing. Remember that bit, smartass?

Shaaaaaring yaaaaaaaaay!!!! Complete clusterfark of a political system. Left wing politics grew out of that.

It grew into just taking and spending money you don't have.


Which was enabled by an under regulated banking system.
 
2012-11-17 12:22:18 AM

jso2897: Capitalism is just a way of making money, and as such, is a useful social tool. And like socialism, when elevated to the level of a system of government (Laissez-faire, or neoconservatism) it fails catastrophically


Your comparison is so out of whack. A failure in communism left millions dead from starvation. When capitalism failed in the 1929 it was "saved" by increased taxes, tariffs, and vast social programs... and by saved I mean nearly a decade later things returned slowly to normal.

To say they both cause catastrophes is like saying both litterbugs and burglars are criminals.

jso2897: It failed catastrophically in the 1930s, and is about to again today.


How can it fail when we've slowly been moving away from it for decades? Our entire free market exists on subsidies and regulated outcomes. Hell, we can't even let businesses fail and that's one of the top rules of capitalism. And no, I'm not saying we don't have a free market. We have a severely hampered and gamed free market but it remains still.

jso2897: This time, I think we'll be luckier. With the boomers dying, and the immigrants coming, the political pendulum is swinging back toward a moderate, democratic system. Fortunately, the adults seem to be taking charge again.


There's whistling past the graveyard... this is organizing a block party in the graveyard.
 
2012-11-17 12:27:41 AM

cman: This is gonna be a fun thread to watch


Only for those who already knew HuffPo was a slimy piece of shiat to begin with,
 
2012-11-17 12:30:28 AM

nmemkha: No evil men killed 80 million people.


If no evil men killed 80 million people then it must have been the good men who did it.
 
2012-11-17 12:31:40 AM

andyofne: nmemkha: No evil men killed 80 million people.

If no evil men killed 80 million people then it must have been the good men who did it.


I also invited the strippers Hitler and Stalin.
 
2012-11-17 12:57:00 AM

Mrbogey: jso2897: Capitalism is just a way of making money, and as such, is a useful social tool. And like socialism, when elevated to the level of a system of government (Laissez-faire, or neoconservatism) it fails catastrophically

Your comparison is so out of whack. A failure in communism left millions dead from starvation. When capitalism failed in the 1929 it was "saved" by increased taxes, tariffs, and vast social programs... and by saved I mean nearly a decade later things returned slowly to normal.

To say they both cause catastrophes is like saying both litterbugs and burglars are criminals.

jso2897: It failed catastrophically in the 1930s, and is about to again today.

How can it fail when we've slowly been moving away from it for decades? Our entire free market exists on subsidies and regulated outcomes. Hell, we can't even let businesses fail and that's one of the top rules of capitalism. And no, I'm not saying we don't have a free market. We have a severely hampered and gamed free market but it remains still.

jso2897: This time, I think we'll be luckier. With the boomers dying, and the immigrants coming, the political pendulum is swinging back toward a moderate, democratic system. Fortunately, the adults seem to be taking charge again.

There's whistling past the graveyard... this is organizing a block party in the graveyard.


Is this how the Neocons having been "Moving us away" from Laissez-Faire for decades?

i18.photobucket.com
Regulation slashed. Taxes on the wealthy slashed. More and more of our wealth funneled to the wealthy and the military-industrial complex every year?
No. We are at the extreme arc of a swing to the right that started with the election of the Grinning Fool in 1980.
 
2012-11-17 01:01:17 AM
Meanwhile, this Kremlin-backed PR firm has pride-of-place on a leading U.S. news aggregator:

img0.fark.net

Russia Today "funded by the Federal budget of Russia through the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation"
 
2012-11-17 01:02:03 AM

Uncivil Engineer: CujoQuarrel: Hang on a minute

There are things on the HuffPo that AREN'T communist propaganda?

I don't know about communist, but every time I open a browser window to the site, it leans distinctly to the left.


That's just your head. You should never link to the site on weekends. Only when you're sober.
 
2012-11-17 01:17:09 AM
Huffy Po only wishes it had the journalistic integrity of Pravda.
 
2012-11-17 01:18:38 AM

Karma313th: brantgoose: I had a look around the Pro Publica website.

Actually, Pro Publica is one of the last bastions of great investigative reporting.The people they've brought on are pretty much a "who's who" of investigative reporters and editors.

Founded back in 2007ish when papers were axing their "projects" teams left and right, remember a lot of laughter and speculation about how an online non-profit without an associated outlet was going to make it, but damned if they didn't pull it off.


What did they axe them?
 
2012-11-17 01:25:33 AM
www.washingtonpost.com

"On all these issues, particularly on missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space. This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility." - Barack Obama to Russian leadership

They were helping The One get re-elected. That makes it OK.
 
2012-11-17 01:29:32 AM

uselessgit: The problem with Communism isn't that it killed 80 million people, it just didn't kill the RIGHT 80 million people. It clearly needs a second chance.


Once you read Ayn Rand you realize the commies missed one.
 
2012-11-17 01:52:36 AM
Wait a minute...

Is "Kremlin propaganda" some kind of new code for "right wing extremists" or something?
 
2012-11-17 01:59:15 AM
So let me get this straight... they give one example wrt HuffPo, repeated five times in language meant to infer something more sinister... and it's not of Pabst working for Ketchum wrting op-eds for HuffPo, it's of Ketchum asking HuffPo to publish Pabst's op-ed because they liked it. ZOMG HUFFPO IS RUN BY TEH COMMIES!11!1! Gotta love prefabricated narrative in search of evidence. Well-done, subby.

Or in other words, the derp is strong in this one.
 
2012-11-17 02:13:53 AM

nmemkha: uselessgit: The problem with Communism isn't that it killed 80 million people, it just didn't kill the RIGHT 80 million people. It clearly needs a second chance.

No evil men killed 80 million people. Communism failed because because it relied on individual to act morally for the good of all. There was no selfish incentive for one to pull his/her own weight.

Capitalism only demands the individual look out for himself and selfishness is the engine that powers it.


I would like to address this stupid, stupid argument with an analogy. Let's say I'm a chemist. I'm being paid to design a process that produces a nice, intert, incompressible fluid for hydraulics.

I submit a process that involves coating sodium pebbles in a polymer and dropping them into water, then calling it an incompressible emulsion.

When the mixture turns out to not only be significantly compressible, but it randomly explodes and kills everyone relying on the machinery in which it's installed, I come back with "no, guys, the system is totally sound, sodium shouldn't explode in contact with water, it's just the fault of a bad, evil couple sodium chunks".

This is almost word-for-word what you're talking about here. Even the most basic knowledge of politics or any kind of social science whatsoever will tell you that "individuals act morally for the good of all without incentive" is empirically, definitively false in every way. If your system has that as one of its design considerations, then the system is at fault for what inevitably follows.

You can't let Communism off on a technicality here, its failure on human rights grounds has been way too empirically established as inevitable to even pretend that the system has any merit whatsoever.

//Socialism's still cool. Not Marxist socialism, obviously, that's shiat and Engels is a retard, but the movement more generally.
 
2012-11-17 02:16:01 AM

Darth_Lukecash: cman: This is gonna be a fun thread to watch

Not if everyone ignores the article from a biased source. And trollish headline....


Right, because facts are mutable things that change depending on the source......Which might explain why you think its nine inches and your girlfriend thinks its three and a half inches.
 
2012-11-17 02:19:42 AM

jso2897: There's not much difference between Communism and Lassez-Faire capitalism, in practice. The robber-baron capitalism of the late 19th century closely resembled Maoism, in practice. Work farms and company towns surrounded with armed guards instructed to shoot workers who attempted to escape, company stores and housing, a huge, impoverished working class supporting a tiny elite who had the power of life and death over them. they might as well have been in Stalin's Russia.


There not much difference between any political ideology in practice. It can and will all be exploited by the ambitious. Even social anarchy, the concept of self government, is a joke in practice because of the mentalities inherent in mankind. Someone always wants to be the leader and someone always wants to be led. Humanity is one big hotbed of BDSM.

There's one hole in every revolution, large or small. And it's one word long - people.
 
2012-11-17 02:27:23 AM
I explored Huff Poo for a bit while I was trying to find my old Fark username. The users over there aren't exactly Nobel laureates.
 
2012-11-17 02:56:59 AM

beta_plus: [www.washingtonpost.com image 606x424]

"The One"


DRINK!
 
2012-11-17 03:26:43 AM
Kremlin? Is that still a thing?
 
2012-11-17 03:40:41 AM

Jim_Callahan: Even the most basic knowledge of politics or any kind of social science whatsoever will tell you that "individuals act morally for the good of all without incentive" is empirically, definitively false in every way.


As phrased, semi-true. All individuals don't, of course. But the statement implies no individuals act morally for the good of all without incentive, which is just as untrue as saying all of them do.

Individuals are indeed self-centered, and will rarely act for the good of anyone if it's to their detriment. But the vast majority of individuals will act for the good of others without incentive. It's the minority in power who demonstrate the truth of Frank Herbert's theory of where things go wrong.

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."
 
2012-11-17 03:55:21 AM
"Putin & Co" pays "Ketchun & Co" for articles praising Putin & Co. Why people are talking about communism???
 
2012-11-17 04:04:37 AM

LewDux: An April 2010 CNBC piece by Kingsmill Bond, then chief strategist at the Moscow investment bank Troika Dialog

In country that occupied 1/6 of all the land in the world troikas performed monologues


FTFM
 
2012-11-17 04:07:36 AM
This is this simple : did this article actually expose or explore any arguments? No, it didn't. It merely insinuated. It didn't point out a single bad idea directly. What it seems to be saying is, "if you're Russian, you have no basis for an opinion," which is, of course, the position of imbeciles.
 
2012-11-17 04:49:45 AM

zerkalo: Meanwhile, this Kremlin-backed PR firm has pride-of-place on a leading U.S. news aggregator:

[img0.fark.net image 77x27]

Russia Today "funded by the Federal budget of Russia through the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation"


Russia Today is pure propaganda. My wife who is not political or a news junkie was watching the news on that channel in Germany, and couldn't believe they called it journalism as the reporters were putting in anti US opinion wherever they could, and not backing up statements with any fact.

Not to mention the fact that during the commercial breaks they had a reading of US soldiers suicide notes. Not as any sort of lead in to a story about the problem, they just had one read every commercial break. Sickening.
 
2012-11-17 05:10:06 AM
That explains the Flash autorun videos, sometimes two or more, on the HuffPost website.

//used to enjoy the "All through the night" call sign for Radio Moscow back in the day when onions were young and belts were short.
 
2012-11-17 06:41:28 AM

thiazi: cman: Is there really an unbiased source anywhere? And yeah, the trollish headline is pretty good

Honestly, it doesn't look like it to me. Google Amber Lyon and/or check her out on this podcast:

Link

In short: CNN airs paid programming from dictatorships.

Then again, it's fun to shout LIBTARDS or CONSERVATARDS! Maybe I'll accuse someone of being an Useful Idiot and then follow it with a bunch of talking points.


THIS
 
2012-11-17 06:42:25 AM

jso2897: Regulation slashed. Taxes on the wealthy slashed. More and more of our wealth funneled to the wealthy and the military-industrial complex every year?
No. We are at the extreme arc of a swing to the right that started with the election of the Grinning Fool in 1980.


Did you notice that the steepest upswing for the rich in your cute little graph occurred while Clinton was in office?
 
2012-11-17 06:55:34 AM
Hey guys! Is this the thread where we learn that Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Stalinism, Nazism, Totalitarianism, whatever the hell Jim Jones was doing and the Democrat (sic) Party are ALL THE SAME IDENTICAL THING?
 
2012-11-17 06:57:06 AM

MrEricSir: Who cares? It's not like HufPo ever pretended to be a credible news source to begin with.

It's like complaining that TMZ lied about Lindsay Lohan's latest DUI.


Well to be fair Kremlin propoganda would be considered much more credible than the HP .
 
2012-11-17 07:10:08 AM

Mr. Right: jso2897: Regulation slashed. Taxes on the wealthy slashed. More and more of our wealth funneled to the wealthy and the military-industrial complex every year?
No. We are at the extreme arc of a swing to the right that started with the election of the Grinning Fool in 1980.

Did you notice that the steepest upswing for the rich in your cute little graph occurred while Clinton was in office?


Did you notice that the boomers are dying, and that immigrants are coming? If you don't think this country is going to swing back toward a more moderate position, I'm pretty sure you are going to be surprised. I'm just making a historical observation - I'm not playing "My Team vs, Your Team", here.
Any political ideology is bad when it gets its own way too much of the time - witness the American left in the early-mid seventies.
When ideologues win a few battles, they start thinking that the world is their oyster, and that they are going to take over and run things their way. In a democracy like America, that never works out for too long.
And as far as Clinton - who happens to be sitting in the White House at any given moment does not define what ideology is in play at that given moment. Gerald Ford sat in the WH from 74-76 - and that certainly didn't equate to the Republicans being in charge at that point in our history.
 
2012-11-17 07:48:53 AM
Better dead than red !
 
2012-11-17 07:52:58 AM

Shmeat: WTF? Half of my comment is gone. Awesome.


It's a commie plot.
 
2012-11-17 08:00:56 AM

jso2897: Mrbogey: jso2897: Capitalism is just a way of making money, and as such, is a useful social tool. And like socialism, when elevated to the level of a system of government (Laissez-faire, or neoconservatism) it fails catastrophically

Your comparison is so out of whack. A failure in communism left millions dead from starvation. When capitalism failed in the 1929 it was "saved" by increased taxes, tariffs, and vast social programs... and by saved I mean nearly a decade later things returned slowly to normal.

To say they both cause catastrophes is like saying both litterbugs and burglars are criminals.

jso2897: It failed catastrophically in the 1930s, and is about to again today.

How can it fail when we've slowly been moving away from it for decades? Our entire free market exists on subsidies and regulated outcomes. Hell, we can't even let businesses fail and that's one of the top rules of capitalism. And no, I'm not saying we don't have a free market. We have a severely hampered and gamed free market but it remains still.

jso2897: This time, I think we'll be luckier. With the boomers dying, and the immigrants coming, the political pendulum is swinging back toward a moderate, democratic system. Fortunately, the adults seem to be taking charge again.

There's whistling past the graveyard... this is organizing a block party in the graveyard.

Is this how the Neocons having been "Moving us away" from Laissez-Faire for decades?

[i18.photobucket.com image 507x481]
Regulation slashed. Taxes on the wealthy slashed. More and more of our wealth funneled to the wealthy and the military-industrial complex every year?
No. We are at the extreme arc of a swing to the right that started with the election of the Grinning Fool in 1980.


Interesting that the biggest single swing in favor of the 1% occurred during Wild Bill's watch. The retarded son tried to match him during the 2000's but couldn't.
 
2012-11-17 08:04:22 AM
I'm going to a club in Moscow called Propaganda tonight, so I'm getting a kick.......................
 
2012-11-17 08:37:05 AM
Public Relations releases are now automatically propaganda? Or just from countries that certain people dislike? Or is it any non-US country? Or does it depend on whether you agree or disagree with the content?

The rules on being outraged keep getting more complicated.
 
2012-11-17 08:42:29 AM
I assure you, comrades, that while the people who wrote the pieces were on the payroll of the Russian government specifically tasked with promoting glorious Mother Russia, their opinions were entirely their own. Putin is building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. Putin has our gratitude. We should all give Putin a great big hand!
 
2012-11-17 08:44:01 AM

Nick Nostril: jso2897: Mrbogey: jso2897: Capitalism is just a way of making money, and as such, is a useful social tool. And like socialism, when elevated to the level of a system of government (Laissez-faire, or neoconservatism) it fails catastrophically

Your comparison is so out of whack. A failure in communism left millions dead from starvation. When capitalism failed in the 1929 it was "saved" by increased taxes, tariffs, and vast social programs... and by saved I mean nearly a decade later things returned slowly to normal.

To say they both cause catastrophes is like saying both litterbugs and burglars are criminals.

jso2897: It failed catastrophically in the 1930s, and is about to again today.

How can it fail when we've slowly been moving away from it for decades? Our entire free market exists on subsidies and regulated outcomes. Hell, we can't even let businesses fail and that's one of the top rules of capitalism. And no, I'm not saying we don't have a free market. We have a severely hampered and gamed free market but it remains still.

jso2897: This time, I think we'll be luckier. With the boomers dying, and the immigrants coming, the political pendulum is swinging back toward a moderate, democratic system. Fortunately, the adults seem to be taking charge again.

There's whistling past the graveyard... this is organizing a block party in the graveyard.

Is this how the Neocons having been "Moving us away" from Laissez-Faire for decades?

[i18.photobucket.com image 507x481]
Regulation slashed. Taxes on the wealthy slashed. More and more of our wealth funneled to the wealthy and the military-industrial complex every year?
No. We are at the extreme arc of a swing to the right that started with the election of the Grinning Fool in 1980.

Interesting that the biggest single swing in favor of the 1% occurred during Wild Bill's watch. The retarded son tried to match him during the 2000's but couldn't.


You aren't the first person to make that utterly irrelevant point, and I've already responded to it. You can save yourself wasted keystrokes by reading a thread before you comment in it.
 
2012-11-17 08:49:09 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Remind me again which of the parties had a candidate named Romney Clinton that invested in China, sent jobs to China, and got campaign funds from China?


Oh, I know this one!
Democrats! Or do you have a short memory?
 
2012-11-17 08:56:43 AM

Mighty_Joe: Princess Ryans Knickers: Remind me again which of the parties had a candidate named Romney Clinton that invested in China, sent jobs to China, and got campaign funds from China?

Oh, I know this one!
Democrats! Or do you have a short memory?


This is where the "RAH!RAH! for our team!" analysis of politics breaks down. If the rightward swing this country has been on for the last 30 years was solely the work of Republicans, it wouldn't have happened. It is the natural outcome of an aging population. The demographic seems to be starting to change now. It seems a little premature to me, because most of the boomers are still alive and voting - but it's possible that when people find themselves out of the workforce, on a fixed income, and more or less at society's mercy, they may tend to get more libersl. Hell, I don't know. I'm not f**king Solomon.
 
2012-11-17 09:14:41 AM

jso2897: Regulation slashed. Taxes on the wealthy slashed. More and more of our wealth funneled to the wealthy and the military-industrial complex every year?
No. We are at the extreme arc of a swing to the right that started with the election of the Grinning Fool in 1980.



Tax policy in and of itself is separate from free markets. "Regulations slashed" is a nice catch all but gov't directives and the federal register grows each year. And by definition if the gov't is funneling money by choosing who gets wealth then it's going against the market.
 
2012-11-17 09:17:44 AM

jso2897:

Did you notice that the boomers are dying, and that immigrants are coming? If you don't think this country is going to swing back toward a more moderate position, I'm pretty sure you are going to be surprised


I can't wait until we are more moderate like Mexico.
 
2012-11-17 09:17:46 AM

Mrbogey: nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.

True that's one of the problems... but those tiny few political elite had their luxury lifestyle been dispersed equally would still have left the average soviet worker a pauper. Having seen some former com-block "luxury" items, I'd still rather be middle class in America during the 80s.

The fundamentals of communism just do not lend to growing living standards like free market capitalism.


Unfortunately free market capitalism without external controls leads to monopolies, plus it can't deal with unlimited supply.
 
2012-11-17 09:43:11 AM

ChuDogg: jso2897:

Did you notice that the boomers are dying, and that immigrants are coming? If you don't think this country is going to swing back toward a more moderate position, I'm pretty sure you are going to be surprised

I can't wait until we are more moderate like Mexico.


We probably aren't looking at things within the same framework. i am not a team player, and I do not analyze politics from the point of view of Democrat/liberal vs. Republican/conservative. I'm old, and I've seen all this happen before - and I tend to analyze politics in terms of demographic and history.
"My Generation" has been the major driving force in american politics over the course of my adult life. When the boomers got the vote, the electorate suddenly became very young, because there are so damned MANY of us. And the country, predictably, took a hard turn to the left.
As we aged, the main body of the electorate moved with us, and the country gravitated to the right.
I really hadn't expected things to start changing this soon - there are a whole lot of us still around, and voting. But the immigrants and minorities have grown faster than I anticipated - and it's possible that the boomers, who are increasingly out of the workforce, on fixed incomes, and at the mercy of society may be getting less "conservative". I don't know.
But I do know this - how we vote is a function of who we are - and as who we are changes, how we vote will change along with it. There really isn't anything "political" (in the Dem/GOP sense) that can be done to change that.
 
2012-11-17 09:51:59 AM

edmo: Public Relations releases are now automatically propaganda? Or just from countries that certain people dislike? Or is it any non-US country? Or does it depend on whether you agree or disagree with the content?

The rules on being outraged keep getting more complicated.


Rule #1: express outrage without reading TFA's
 
2012-11-17 09:56:39 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Unfortunately free market capitalism without external controls leads to monopolies, plus it can't deal with unlimited supply


I'm gonna say something shocking so prepare for your monocle to fly off and have a fainting couch handy.

Monopolies are not by themselves inherently destructive. A monopoly can be useful but regulations should not be formed under the idea of stopping monopolies. They should be formed under the guidelines of ensuring honest business practices and if service based- service standards. Competition should always be welcomed in business but gov't forcing competition is itself not a end unto itself.
 
2012-11-17 10:21:12 AM

LoneWolf343: nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.

Just like capitalism.


thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2012-11-17 10:27:12 AM

Big Ramifications: LoneWolf343: nmemkha: "Ogga booga Communism!"

The problem with Communism was that a tiny few wound up with all the resources and power.

Just like capitalism.
~
But unlike capitalism, it was all about sharing. Remember that bit, smartass?

Shaaaaaring yaaaaaaaaay!!!! Complete clusterfark of a political system. Left wing politics grew out of that.


Durty sharing Commonists at their nefarious work:

theshiksa.com
 
2012-11-17 10:27:53 AM

jso2897: ChuDogg: jso2897:

Did you notice that the boomers are dying, and that immigrants are coming? If you don't think this country is going to swing back toward a more moderate position, I'm pretty sure you are going to be surprised

I can't wait until we are more moderate like Mexico.

We probably aren't looking at things within the same framework. i am not a team player, and I do not analyze politics from the point of view of Democrat/liberal vs. Republican/conservative. I'm old, and I've seen all this happen before - and I tend to analyze politics in terms of demographic and history.
"My Generation" has been the major driving force in american politics over the course of my adult life. When the boomers got the vote, the electorate suddenly became very young, because there are so damned MANY of us. And the country, predictably, took a hard turn to the left.
As we aged, the main body of the electorate moved with us, and the country gravitated to the right.
I really hadn't expected things to start changing this soon - there are a whole lot of us still around, and voting. But the immigrants and minorities have grown faster than I anticipated - and it's possible that the boomers, who are increasingly out of the workforce, on fixed incomes, and at the mercy of society may be getting less "conservative". I don't know.
But I do know this - how we vote is a function of who we are - and as who we are changes, how we vote will change along with it. There really isn't anything "political" (in the Dem/GOP sense) that can be done to change that.


why did you respond to me if you just wanted to go on an unrelated rant?

and thanks for leaving us a economically third world violent shiathole with no borders, grandpa. I guess getting your lawn mowed was more important
 
2012-11-17 10:34:42 AM
Silly Russian autocrats: don't they know that to create the simulacrum of a democratic open society you need to bribe both 'sides' to run your propaganda, not just one?

/The Vatican coined the word 'propaganda': can you guess which country first used it in a modern secular sense?

//If Pooty had Anna Semenovich stick her grudies in my face I'd say whatever they asked me to
 
2012-11-17 10:48:39 AM
www.thomaslfriedman.com

Hi guys! What's up? Am I missing something?
 
2012-11-17 11:22:00 AM

ChuDogg: jso2897: ChuDogg: jso2897:

Did you notice that the boomers are dying, and that immigrants are coming? If you don't think this country is going to swing back toward a more moderate position, I'm pretty sure you are going to be surprised

I can't wait until we are more moderate like Mexico.

We probably aren't looking at things within the same framework. i am not a team player, and I do not analyze politics from the point of view of Democrat/liberal vs. Republican/conservative. I'm old, and I've seen all this happen before - and I tend to analyze politics in terms of demographic and history.
"My Generation" has been the major driving force in american politics over the course of my adult life. When the boomers got the vote, the electorate suddenly became very young, because there are so damned MANY of us. And the country, predictably, took a hard turn to the left.
As we aged, the main body of the electorate moved with us, and the country gravitated to the right.
I really hadn't expected things to start changing this soon - there are a whole lot of us still around, and voting. But the immigrants and minorities have grown faster than I anticipated - and it's possible that the boomers, who are increasingly out of the workforce, on fixed incomes, and at the mercy of society may be getting less "conservative". I don't know.
But I do know this - how we vote is a function of who we are - and as who we are changes, how we vote will change along with it. There really isn't anything "political" (in the Dem/GOP sense) that can be done to change that.

why did you respond to me if you just wanted to go on an unrelated rant?

and thanks for leaving us a economically third world violent shiathole with no borders, grandpa. I guess getting your lawn mowed was more important


Lighten up, Francis. You'll get over it.
 
2012-11-17 01:28:56 PM

nmemkha: uselessgit: The problem with Communism isn't that it killed 80 million people, it just didn't kill the RIGHT 80 million people. It clearly needs a second chance.

No evil men killed 80 million people. Communism failed because because it relied on individual to act morally for the good of all. There was no selfish incentive for one to pull his/her own weight.

Capitalism only demands the individual look out for himself and selfishness is the engine that powers it.


Well....I'm pretty sure communism failed because it took place in Russia, which is historically also known as 'that place where folks are batshiat insane'.

/Really, communism is an economic theory. Crazy, yes, but every theory in almost every field is crazy and the scientists behind it think it will fix the whole world initially. Take it as a basic economic theory, use a few ideas, and it's fine.
//And therefore, it is probably not because communism was inherently immoral that it failed, more because the country applying it is not historically mentally stable.
 
2012-11-17 03:18:16 PM
I mean half y'all are communists, so what's the issue?
 
2012-11-17 03:46:37 PM
Did they mention anything about the gremlins from the Kremlin?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-17 06:30:33 PM
Princess Ryans Knickers:
Remind me again which of the parties had a candidate named Romney that invested in China, sent jobs to China, and got campaign funds from China?

Hey, look, kids, it's the new "B...B...B...But... BUSH!"
 
2012-11-17 06:56:26 PM
simkatu:
Obviously both sides are bad, but FoxNews is the absolute worst, most biased source on Earth and they have the audacity to say "Fair and Balanced". We know HuffPo and MSNBC are progressive news sources

WE HAVE A WINNAR! Congratulations, author of the dumbest post in the thread.

Leftist media analysts, the Pew Research, concludes that CNBC was significantly more biased than your "worst in the universe" Fox News. Their STUDY shows that, rather conclusively.

But, it's nice to see that an ignorant, bigoted leftist will take an outlet known to be peddling Russian propaganda, over a news outlet less biased than any other large American outlet, according to the peer-reviewed research. Study HERE.

Also, please note that the LEAST biased news outlet in American media is "Special Report with Brit Hume," according to the same study. The problem is, you apparently just do not see bias, as long as it agrees with your bias. Don't feel too bad about that -- you are certainly NOT alone in that.
 
2012-11-17 06:58:37 PM
CujoQuarrel:
Hang on a minute

There are things on the HuffPo that AREN'T communist propaganda?

Whoa, there... settle down... So far, that's JUST an unsubstantiated rumor.
 
2012-11-17 07:26:01 PM
Mrbogey:
Monopolies are not by themselves inherently destructive. A monopoly can be useful but regulations should not be formed under the idea of stopping monopolies. They should be formed under the guidelines of ensuring honest business practices and if service based- service standards. Competition should always be welcomed in business but gov't forcing competition is itself not a end unto itself.

Furthermore, actual monopolies are not possible without government regulation. In any community, cable television is generally a monopoly, because it is illegal to compete with them. Practical monopolies form where entry costs are a huge burden, as in the auto business, but, companies like Tesla show that people CAN break into the market. An ever-increasing blanket of regulations is a method of ensuring that big companies have a significant advantage over smaller companies.
 
2012-11-17 07:32:17 PM
PsiChick:
//And therefore, it is probably not because communism was inherently immoral that it failed, more because the country applying it is not historically mentally stable.

No, that doesn't cut it. We have two examples, Korea and Germany, where a contiguous country was cut in half, one half going socialist/communist, and the other going capitalist/republic. In both cases, the communist half became a toxic shiathole, and the capitalist half became an economic world power. Experimental evidence falsifies communism.
 
2012-11-17 07:41:52 PM

GeneralJim: PsiChick: //And therefore, it is probably not because communism was inherently immoral that it failed, more because the country applying it is not historically mentally stable.
No, that doesn't cut it. We have two examples, Korea and Germany, where a contiguous country was cut in half, one half going socialist/communist, and the other going capitalist/republic. In both cases, the communist half became a toxic shiathole, and the capitalist half became an economic world power. Experimental evidence falsifies communism.


A) I don't know about Korea, but Germany? Yeah...Hitler was the product of a loooooong line of sociopathic politicians. And notice that Hitler was pretty much a capitalist until he started gearing up the war machine, so unless you're going to say capitalism is bad because Germany...

B) It's still not immoral. It's an economic theory. It's got no more morality than a chair. Doesn't mean people won't misapply it to immoral ends, but unless you have a policy of 'kill all the people', it's pretty hard to make a theory immoral.
 
2012-11-17 08:23:09 PM

GeneralJim: Princess Ryans Knickers: Remind me again which of the parties had a candidate named Romney that invested in China, sent jobs to China, and got campaign funds from China?
Hey, look, kids, it's the new "B...B...B...But... BUSH!"


When did the economy go to shiat? 2008.
Who attacked an innocent country after 9/11? Bush.
Who put the cost of that and a second war on a credit card? Bush.
And which side fought and filibustered against everything that would have lessened and fixed those problems because "The number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president"? Bush's.

When history and the facts plainly show it to be the case, you people whining about the blame being put on the one responsible makes even more retarded. Doubly so coming from "The party of personal responsibility".
 
Displayed 124 of 124 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report