patrick.net

richwicks says

We could completely crush propaganda and ACTUAL disinformation in months, if not weeks, if people just fucking posted goddamned links.

I doubt it. We would then be arguing over validity of sources.

Onvacation says

richwicks says

I am sick and tired of people NOT doing this.

I'm just saying that you can refute their ideas without personal attack, or ignore the idiots.

Even better subtly mock them.

No. I do not think mockery is a good way to go. Everybody makes errors, everybody skips thinking at times, everybody can be discourteous at times without knowing it.

I have a friend that constantly uses sarcasm, because the people he's talking to don't realize he's using sarcasm, and he thinks this is tremendously funny. I keep pointing out "well, you're not going to change a mind THAT way" and his response is "oh, it's IMPOSSIBLE to change anybody's mind".

That's fucking bullshit. If it was true, I'd be the same, stupid, arrogant kid I was at 20, so would everybody.

Don't mock, don't be mean, just explain how they are wrong. I said "post link or shut up" - to WHOM? You don't know. That was my "personal attack" against.... Somebody. Patrick's site, he can do what he wants.

Onvacation says

I doubt it. We would then be arguing over validity of sources.

FINE. That's just fine.

Sources often have sources themselves, that's how a research paper works. You know that.

This is peer review, allow people to do fucking peer review. When you just CLAIM something, you're just making a claim. People need to be pushed (apparently) to back up their bullshit. I propose this be a new netiquette rule.

Saying "Hunter Biden left cocaine in the whitehouse and the whitehouse was evacuated as a result" isn't evidence to me, even if it's entirely believable. Was Hunter Biden there? How do you know it was cocaine, where did you hear that? But that's been a story for a few days. If the story is picked up, and it turns out to be false, it just serves the purpose of "oh, look at those stupid conservatives, they'll believe anything!"

I don't expect everybody to go through the links, verify something is true or false, but SOMEBODY will, always. I do it frequently, and I'm tired of being in a minority. If it's false, there's always somebody that will scream it is.

It takes more work than it should to verify anything. Make it easy. If you're posting something - you got from somewhere - is it that hard to post a link? It's trivial - you have it RIGHT THERE.

Here: look at this:


original link

Start at 30:18 (click original link, instead of the video, I can't embed Odysee here) - he does what I do, but makes a living off from it. Half the work is debunking.

The gubermint says they don't want misinformation on the Internet - FINE - let's call their fucking bluff.

Debunking is a pain in the ass, because those that want us remain ignorant treat us like mushrooms - they keep us into the dark, and feed us shit.

With just MINIMAL effort, no more shit.

Proudly link impaired. Do your own triangulation tango.

Ceffer says

Proudly link impaired. Do your own triangulation tango.

Then you are part of the problem. Why do you want to be part of the problem? You're the worst offender of spreading bullshit, at least here, in my opinion. Why do you do this? Do you think this is funny? Do you just do this because I have asked you dozens of times not to do this, and then gotten pissed off because you refuse to post links? I hope you're at least being paid to do it.

I know, with certainty that every group, is infiltrated. Every group, unless they are very tiny.

I don't try to piss off anybody here, but I do get frustrated. I'm looking at this marvel of communication and information - why don't people use it? 90% of the bandwidth is porn and spam. It's like when the Discovery Channel first showed up, it was great, then it was "Are Mermaids real?", on Discovery, the documentary channel... Discredit EVERYTHING you did prior.

This is an individual system.

https://www.infowars.com/posts/un-spox-left-speechless-when-confronted-over-u-s-occupation-of-syria-while-lecturing-about-ukraine-conflict/

UN Spox Left Speechless When Confronted Over U.S. Occupation of Syria While Lecturing About Ukraine Conflict
July 4th 2023, 12:29 pm

UN stooge struggles to explain the difference between U.S. troops occupying Syria and Russian troops occupying eastern Ukraine.

A UN spokesman struggled to explain how the U.S. was not violating the international “rules based order” by continuing its military occupation inside Syria.

In a clip from March receiving renewed interest online, UN Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary-General Farhan Haq was confronted by Chinese journalist Edward Xu over the hypocrisy of the U.S. foreign policy of occupying any nation they wish but condemning other nations for doing the same.

“Do you think the presence of the U.S. military in Syria is illegal or not?” Xu asked Haq.

Haq was caught flat-footed by the question.

“Uh, that’s not an issue that we’re- that we’re dealing with at this stage. There’s been a war…” he responded, referring to the Syrian civil war that kicked off in 2011, over a decade ago.

Xu suggested the situation “sounds very familiar” to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, where Russia has decided to occupy a portion of Ukraine’s eastern territory.

“Because it sounds very familiar,” Xu said. “This week we talk a lot about the UN Charter, the international law and relative resolutions. But it sounds to me, a foreign presence in another country without invitation sounds like something else to me.”

Haq dodged the question, saying, “I’ll leave your analysis to you. That there’s- at this stage….in Syria there’s no…”

Xu pushed forward, asking, “What’s the difference between the situation in Syria and the situation in Ukraine?”

Haq insisted there’s “no US armed forces inside of Syria.”

“So I don’t have a…it’s not a parallel situation,” Haq added, clarifying there’s U.S. “military activity” but no “ground presence” in Syria.

But Xu pointed out that earlier this year, 5 U.S. service members were wounded in a suicide drone strike in Syria that resulted in retaliatory airstrikes against Iranian-linked targets in Syria.

“Five U.S. soldiers were injured in that attack. If there were no U.S. service members in Syria, how could they [have gotten] injured?” Xu asked.

Haq was left speechless.

“That’s weird right?” Xu asked. “Should I asked you about that?”

Of course there are still U.S. troops in Syria, because the U.S. House of Representatives in February voted down a proposal put forward by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to withdraw those troops from the region.

“Congress has never authorized the use of military force in Syria,” Gaetz said in a statement upon introducing the bill. “The United States is currently not in a war with or against Syria, so why are we conducting dangerous military operations there? President [Joe] Biden must remove all U.S. armed forces from Syria.”

i created this flag in Inkscape after seeing 2603 post above.

richwicks says

Why do you do this? Do you think this is funny?

I do. Much of what ceffer posts is obviously probably possibly untrue. But it's funny.

Some people have a hard time with parody and sarcasm. Either take it at face value or research until you find out that it really is a joke.

I met up with some people in SF yesterday who could not believe that darling Zelensky would halt elections. Today I was sent a Snopes link as "proof" that Zelensky "had to" halt elections:

> Did Zelenskyy Say There Would Be No Elections in Ukraine Until War Ends?
>
> The Ukrainian Constitution does not allow for elections when martial law is imposed.
>
>

But ChatGPT says:

"The Ukrainian constitution does not explicitly state that elections must be suspended during martial law. However, it does grant certain powers to the President in times of martial law, including the ability to impose restrictions on citizens' rights and freedoms."

So it looks like Zelensky lied, and Snopes lied too. Who fact checks the fact checkers?

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/11/08/constitution_14.pdf

Onvacation says

Some people have a hard time with parody and sarcasm. Either take it at face value or research until you find out that it really is a joke.

@Onvacation Is this parody or real?




Does it make a difference to you if that's parody or if that article ACTUALLY exists?

I'm pretty sure it's true.

Zelensky can remain president for as long as he continues martial law.

@DavidSacks
On July 4, 1821, John Quincy Adams gave his famous speech declaring that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” The speech still resonates today:

“She (America) is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own...

“She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

“The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

Patrick says

I'm doubtful of this.

The US is run by either total fucking incompetents, or a 5th column, but they aren't THAT stupid or THAT suicidal. If they created another Chernobyl, the US will be vilified. It will be the end of NATO, and Europe will ally itself against the United States.

The only short term interest Europe has in NATO is the free money they get from it. They don't pay for it. It's just a bunch of bribed / blackmailed assholes in Europe under the CIA's thumb running the various countries.

I really think the US is at war with Europe in a way. The US just doesn't have any fucking diplomats. All we had to do, was get along with these assholes. All we had to do is convince Europe not to cooperate with Russia, and have REAL criticisms of Russia. There's plenty to criticize Russia about. Their economy isn't great, they can't seem to make anything, they've been in poverty for decades and it's just because of their fucked up infrastructure. Even meet a Russian engineer? They're fucking awesome, but they can't make shit in Russia.

Fucking hate the Neocons. Stupid, arrogant, fools.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1678875362967666688

Ukraine, which has the corruption level of Gabon in Africa, was the nexus for money laundering, human trafficking, and since it had a large supply of IT guys and educated people, served as the Deep State Misinformation headquarters, as well as hosting all kinds of weird biolabs right next to Russia.

I mention the latter because if Russia is a threat, and there was warfare which turned out to happen, all that stuff would be accessible to the Russians. BUT, it was more important to have to biolabs doing weaponization gain of function, which are the same thing.

Doesn't matter what country, just don't do bad stuff.

This is a stupid conflict which Ukraine cannot possibly win. The prolongation of this is just more dead men.

This has nothing to do with morality, who is right and who is wrong, it doesn't matter - Ukraine will lose this war, it is cruel to prolong it. This war is just killing men, and I see no good in that.

richwicks says

This is a stupid conflict which Ukraine cannot possibly win.

I think the Taliban, North Vietnamese and Iraqi insurgents were told the same thing and they weren't nearly as armed or as sophisticated as the Ukrainians.

Besides - what does a Russian "win" look like at this point? Hanging onto parts of Eastern Ukraine and dealing with a grinding insurgency for the next quarter century?

Is that "win" worth the hundreds of thousands of Russian lives lost or ruined, Billions wasted and having 2 more Russian neighbors join NATO?

The war and killing stops tomorrow if Putin makes the call.

It's all on him.

socal2 says

Besides - what does a Russian "win" look like at this point? Hanging onto parts of Eastern Ukraine and dealing with a grinding insurgency for the next quarter century?

A Russian win is when Ukraine doesn't accept NATO weaponry and stops bombing Eastern Ukraine, according to Putin. That will be achieved, however, I don't know what the real motive of the war is.

socal2 says

The war and killing stops tomorrow if Putin makes the call.

Zelenskyy cannot win - the war is already over, it's just a question of how many people die until it's official.

This is a proxy war between the United States and Russia. Ukraine is just a pawn in this. They (the young Ukrainian men) are all going to die, and that is just fucking horrible. I don't think the nation will survive - too many men will be killed, and I even suspect that NATO may collapse, this isn't good for Europe after all - why do European nations care about this?

I just view this as a terrible, easily preventable tragedy, instigated by a bunch of Neocon fuckers. I am appalled they control our foreign policy. They are complete, criminal, scum. Victoria Nuland will die peacefully in her sleep I bet, she should be in Guantanamo now. How many people are dead because of her decisions? Who is above her that allowed this? They should be executed as well. Demons run our nation now.

socal2 says

Besides - what does a Russian "win" look like at this point? Hanging onto parts of Eastern Ukraine and dealing with a grinding insurgency for the next quarter century?

This is NOT an insurgency. It's a war of attrition. Russia holds territory. Zelensky must attack entrenched defenders if he wants to recover "lost territory". How's that working out for the Ukrainians?

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/no-show-wednesday-july-12-2023-c

I used to think maybe Zelenskyy, now a billionaire, just didn’t have any suits.

Wait, what?

How does an actor turned politician suddenly become a billionaire?

Hmmm, we have been shipping billions to Ukraine...

But, but...we were constantly told that Ukraine is winning!

Right along with cluster bombs are war crimes, we would never allow F-16s to be sent to Ukraine and this was all 'to save democracy' even though Ukraine is a dictatorship that won't hold elections, arrests reporters that report inconvenient things and bans opposition parties.

So why this:



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/11/biden-western-alliance-prepare-nato-for-russia-ukraine-war/

Patrick says

Wait, what?

How does an actor turned politician suddenly become a billionaire?

Hmmm, we have been shipping billions to Ukraine...

He's in the Panama Papers. Not saying his wealth is legit, just that he had it before the war started.

There's one picture of one moment with him just standing by himself at the NATO event, is that really enough to say he's out?

NuttBoxer says

There's one picture of one moment with him just standing by himself at the NATO event, is that really enough to say he's out?

You mean this one?

RayAmerica says

Maybe these 'world leaders' know something that we don't?

"It’s a Big Club, and You Ain’t in it" - George Carlin

And this one?

Trollhole says

Yeah, just seems like classic over-reaction based on little actual content...

Without Sean Penn following Z (or avatar) around or whatever sucking its cock, it just doesn't create the same impression.

Roseanne Barr - Piers Morgan Interview

Roseanne Barr: "I’m from the Ukraine - there's a large amount of Nazis in the Ukraine, and they actually killed my whole family... They marched my entire family... grandparents, 10 siblings, out into the forest and buried them alive..." https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1679053307128496128

Again, by supporting the Nazis in Ukraine, we support Democracy? <==== Read this again.

And how come Ukraine is a Democracy given that the USA overthrew the Democratically elected government of the Ukraine in 2014?

I knew it. Roseanne is a Ukrainian spy. How come she's not in DARPA or the NSC?

Ooops!... They did it again.



PS. I believe yesterday was the exact 1 year since the former Cretin of Kremlin promised "Armageddon" if that bridge is hit. Hmmm.

Patrick says

How does an actor turned politician suddenly become a billionaire?

He didn't. Just a mere millionaire and he was that before being elected. He did run a major media empire after all. Ask that guy for a proof of Zelensky being a "billionaier"- he'll run into the bushes never to be seen again.

Eric Holder says

He didn't. Just a mere millionaire and he was that before being elected. He did run a major media empire after all. Ask that guy for a proof of Zelensky being a "billionaier"- he'll run into the bushes never to be seen again.

And yet again, I'll refer you to the Panama Papers. Zelensky's income is as legitimate as Biden's.