The EU debate - Part III
- Thread starter Jürgenmeiʃter
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
so then you should be able to criticise their points through discussion rather than limiting your criticism to the fact that they are on Russia Today.That sentence doesn't make sense, unfortunately.
Were you asking if I'm saying that journalists talk bullshit because they're on Russia Today?
No, you've got it the wrong way round. Russia Today puts people on if they talk their particular brand of bullshit.
Don't get me wrong, not everything on there is either crap or wrong.
It all represents their agenda, though.
All extremely pro-Putin and anti-Western. They like your mate Corbyn, though!
It's funny, because when I do that with the spam that you post, you ignore it and carry on regardless.
When someone's claims are that the Syrian regime are actually the good guys and are doing nothing wrong, then there's not much to discuss.
Neither side are good. It's two **** storms hitting each other and there's virtually nobody claiming otherwise.
If someone disputes that, then they need to provide evidence, beyond claiming that they were there and spoke to people.
Putin's supported by most Russians. What does that prove?
21% of that poll think that ISIS are a good influence, FFS.
It proves that Russians support Putin. It doesn't mean he's right.
Same as the other polls show that most Syrians support Assad despite the west saying there is a popular uprising against Assad.
ISIS support is mainly in Raqqa
He knows RT's biased, because the BBC told him.
“For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.”
A poll can show that Assad has 47% support and there can still be a popular uprising, even if it's accurate.
47% is actually pretty low, especially considering the state of the media in Syria.
Actually RT told me and I posted the video on here. You don't think it is, though.
Don't worry, I'm sure that your alt-right bullshit artists are spot on and it's not state-sponsored propaganda, as everyone else knows it is.
Is that the RT journalist quitting, posted on the RT youtube channel?
I don't think anyone is suggesting they're not biased or state funded, it's more the case that they're pointing out the other mainstream channels are too.
Only a fool takes information from any of them as gospel, you need to do some digging.
Bigger fools dismiss reports because of where they're posted.
Last edited:
All media is biased and should be treated as such.
It's not all state owned and sponsored, with virtually no dissenting voices allowed, though.
There's a big difference between having a slight political bias and being a propaganda channel, though.
A Tesco value sandwich and an actual turd sandwich might both be bad meals, but one's far, far worse.
Since when did you do any digging, anyway? You post links and don't even comment on them.
I actually look at the sources and see who they work for, at least. You don't even do that.
- Status