Zhivago wrote:
He supported Chavez. Perhaps you think he was a dictator?
He's never supported the IRA as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you have a quote to back up your assertion?
I think (know) Chavez like Gadaffi gave opportunities for certain armed groups which claim to coalesce around left leaning politics, or at least a desire to usurp right leaning capitalist institutions, to gather and practice their shooting skills and even bomb making skills, and that they funded various groups in the process, and brought in and gave residence to individuals from the IRA or Hezbollah or what have you to have a 'safe' place to be, access to monies and allow them to pass on their knowledge in such as bomb making. Just terrific stand up work from Chavez to hand over millions to terrorists whilst leaving his country in such a mess.
It might be fair to say Corbyn isn't an active IRA supporter and more he's an active supporter against some parts of the British state, and if the IRA happen to help in that then at the very least the enemy of my enemy and all that. I suspect also much of Corbyn's public quotes would be more in support of Sinn Fein, but that's potato/potahto going back to the 70s/80s, and I'm not interested in searching for his quotes on anything.
The fact remains that Chavez was not a dictator - te was fairly elected. Even former president Jimmy Carter said as much.
So now you're backtracking and saying its Sinn Fein he supports. They aren't the same thing at all.
I haven't said anything about Chavez being a dictator Vs elected in this little exchange so that's a tangent you're heading off on your own with.
And I didn't say Corbyn doesn't supported the IRA, I've said his public comments are more likely to be in support of the IRA's supposed political side, and that quite frankly they're more than a little interchangeable. For what it's worth I suspect Corbyn is anti violence across the board though he'd sympathise with some of the dislike of the British establishment in his support for such as the IRA, and there's that he's comfortable doing business with those he does know hold stronger views than his own in the cause of the greater good of socialism, and I have an aversion to all that he's willing to turn a blind eye to in the name of his notional greater good.
Zhivago wrote:
I don't defend him simply cos he's a socialist. Corbyn is one of the most moral politicians in parliament. Your comparison with the far right in America is farcical.
Your opinion of him is based on falsehoods, which is very unfortunate. I'd feel embarrassed if I'd been tricked into believing lies like you have been, to be quite frank.
I used to think that. But having dug just a little deeper into his past, his previous associations, the people he has met and worked with, the causes he has supported, the regimes he has uncritically backed, the positions he has adopted and you start to see a very different person from the one often portrayed.
You haven't dug into his past, the media has dug all the dirt if could find. I actually do my research, every time there's a new smear, I look into it, and every time it turns out to be just that, a smear.
Goodness, just how arrogant can you be. Because i've come to a different conclusion to you about Corbyn that means I haven't done any background checking or reading, and that I'm simply lapping up what the media have pushed out.
In fact, i've read about Corbyn from a variety of sources and been able to form a view based on the extensive information that is out there on the record..
I do find it a glorious irony that whilst hating each other’s politics, and probably each other’s personalities, both Corbynities and Trumpers will claim #fakenews and/or MSM lies whenever confronted with an ugly truth. Hilarious, if dangerous.
fivepointer wrote:
I used to think that. But having dug just a little deeper into his past, his previous associations, the people he has met and worked with, the causes he has supported, the regimes he has uncritically backed, the positions he has adopted and you start to see a very different person from the one often portrayed.
You haven't dug into his past, the media has dug all the dirt if could find. I actually do my research, every time there's a new smear, I look into it, and every time it turns out to be just that, a smear.
Goodness, just how arrogant can you be. Because i've come to a different conclusion to you about Corbyn that means I haven't done any background checking or reading, and that I'm simply lapping up what the media have pushed out.
In fact, i've read about Corbyn from a variety of sources and been able to form a view based on the extensive information that is out there on the record..
If you were specific with your claims, it would help your assertion that you have researched properly.
Mellsblue wrote:I do find it a glorious irony that whilst hating each other’s politics, and probably each other’s personalities, both Corbynities and Trumpers will claim #fakenews and/or MSM lies whenever confronted with an ugly truth. Hilarious, if dangerous.
Dangerous is believing the propaganda that pollutes our media.
Mellsblue wrote:I do find it a glorious irony that whilst hating each other’s politics, and probably each other’s personalities, both Corbynities and Trumpers will claim #fakenews and/or MSM lies whenever confronted with an ugly truth. Hilarious, if dangerous.
Dangerous is believing the propaganda that pollutes our media.
It’s only dangerous if you believe or disbelieve what you read unquestioningly. Dangerous is also also if you term anhthong shich you don’t belevd as propaganda. All media will have bias, be it the authors and/or the platform targeting a demographic. Intelligent people will know that and view what they read accordingly. Idiots and ideologues will just claim propaganda/fake news with anything they disagree with.
And really I've got to wonder, who are the 'most people can' group who can feed a family on £10 for the week? Unless that's ignoring plenty of staples already in the cupboard, rice, pasta, pulses and so on then less than £1.50 a day would be a challenge to feed 1 for most people I'd assume, never mind a family. Christ I used to average more than £10 a day even when it was just me in the house (or flat as the case may have been)
Mellsblue wrote:I do find it a glorious irony that whilst hating each other’s politics, and probably each other’s personalities, both Corbynities and Trumpers will claim #fakenews and/or MSM lies whenever confronted with an ugly truth. Hilarious, if dangerous.
Dangerous is believing the propaganda that pollutes our media.
It’s only dangerous if you believe or disbelieve what you read unquestioningly. Dangerous is also if you term anything which you don’t believe as propaganda. All media will have bias, be it the authors and/or the platform targeting a demographic. Intelligent people will know that and view what they read accordingly. Idiots and ideologues will just claim propaganda/fake news with anything they disagree with.
So as long as you've questioned it, then it's ok to believe in it?
Zhivago wrote:
Dangerous is believing the propaganda that pollutes our media.
It’s only dangerous if you believe or disbelieve what you read unquestioningly. Dangerous is also if you term anything which you don’t believe as propaganda. All media will have bias, be it the authors and/or the platform targeting a demographic. Intelligent people will know that and view what they read accordingly. Idiots and ideologues will just claim propaganda/fake news with anything they disagree with.
So as long as you've questioned it, then it's ok to believe in it?
Yep. Read it, question it’s validity against what you already know and then decide whether you believe it or not. How do you run your life? Do you unconditionally believe things from certain sources and automatically call anything from any other source propaganda?
Mellsblue wrote:
It’s only dangerous if you believe or disbelieve what you read unquestioningly. Dangerous is also if you term anything which you don’t believe as propaganda. All media will have bias, be it the authors and/or the platform targeting a demographic. Intelligent people will know that and view what they read accordingly. Idiots and ideologues will just claim propaganda/fake news with anything they disagree with.
So as long as you've questioned it, then it's ok to believe in it?
Yep. Read it, question it’s validity against what you already know and then decide whether you believe it or not. How do you run your life? Do you unconditionally believe things from certain sources and automatically call anything from any other source propaganda?
No, I start from the position of viewing everything I read as propaganda.
Zhivago wrote:
So as long as you've questioned it, then it's ok to believe in it?
Yep. Read it, question it’s validity against what you already know and then decide whether you believe it or not. How do you run your life? Do you unconditionally believe things from certain sources and automatically call anything from any other source propaganda?
No, I start from the position of viewing everything I read as propaganda.
Mellsblue wrote:
Yep. Read it, question it’s validity against what you already know and then decide whether you believe it or not. How do you run your life? Do you unconditionally believe things from certain sources and automatically call anything from any other source propaganda?
No, I start from the position of viewing everything I read as propaganda.
How do you decide what isn’t propaganda?
That's not a relevant question for me because there's very little that isn't propaganda.
So even if I'm reading the guardian or canary ofc I still view it as propaganda. But some propaganda tries to use facts more and focuses more on influencing in subtle ways. Others are less concerned about their credibility.
Zhivago wrote:
No, I start from the position of viewing everything I read as propaganda.
How do you decide what isn’t propaganda?
That's not a relevant question for me because there's very little that isn't propaganda.
So even if I'm reading the guardian or canary ofc I still view it as propaganda. But some propaganda tries to use facts more and focuses more on influencing in subtle ways. Others are less concerned about their credibility.
In the same vein, I treat everything you write as propaganda and not credible.
Zhivago wrote:
No, I start from the position of viewing everything I read as propaganda.
How do you decide what isn’t propaganda?
That's not a relevant question for me because there's very little that isn't propaganda.
So even if I'm reading the guardian or canary ofc I still view it as propaganda. But some propaganda tries to use facts more and focuses more on influencing in subtle ways. Others are less concerned about their credibility.
Mellsblue wrote:
How do you decide what isn’t propaganda?
That's not a relevant question for me because there's very little that isn't propaganda.
So even if I'm reading the guardian or canary ofc I still view it as propaganda. But some propaganda tries to use facts more and focuses more on influencing in subtle ways. Others are less concerned about their credibility.
So, where do you get your facts?
Propaganda often contains facts. Not all the facts, but some. You'll never know 100% but the more you read the better picture you get. You just cannot ever be so confident.
Zhivago wrote:
That's not a relevant question for me because there's very little that isn't propaganda.
So even if I'm reading the guardian or canary ofc I still view it as propaganda. But some propaganda tries to use facts more and focuses more on influencing in subtle ways. Others are less concerned about their credibility.
So, where do you get your facts?
Propaganda often contains facts. Not all the facts, but some. You'll never know 100% but the more you read the better picture you get. You just cannot ever be so confident.
So you read it, question it’s validity against what you already know and then decide whether you believe it or not. Which is what I put about six posts ago......
Propaganda often contains facts. Not all the facts, but some. You'll never know 100% but the more you read the better picture you get. You just cannot ever be so confident.
So you read it, question it’s validity against what you already know and then decide whether you believe it or not. Which is what I put about six posts ago......
You treat it as black or white though - believe it or not, propaganda or not.
That's fundamentally different approach, even though similar.
Zhivago wrote:
Propaganda often contains facts. Not all the facts, but some. You'll never know 100% but the more you read the better picture you get. You just cannot ever be so confident.
So you read it, question it’s validity against what you already know and then decide whether you believe it or not. Which is what I put about six posts ago......
You treat it as black or white though - believe it or not, propaganda or not.
That's fundamentally different approach, even though similar.
If I think it’s propaganda I don’t believe it. It’s exactly the same approach from a slight different starting point - I have platforms where I start from a position of trust and those that I don’t but I always question the content, whilst you distrust all from the start. Even those I trust I know will have an angle. Obviously, being a self-proclaimed left wing intellectual, there’s a lot about these days, you think I am just duped by MSM propaganda whereas you have thoroughly researched your views.
Mellsblue wrote:
So you read it, question it’s validity against what you already know and then decide whether you believe it or not. Which is what I put about six posts ago......
You treat it as black or white though - believe it or not, propaganda or not.
That's fundamentally different approach, even though similar.
If I think it’s propaganda I don’t believe it. It’s exactly the same approach from a slight different starting point - I have platforms where I start from a position of trust and those that I don’t but I always question the content, whilst you distrust all from the start. Even those I trust I know will have an angle. Obviously, being a self-proclaimed left wing intellectual, there’s a lot about these days, you think I am just duped by MSM propaganda whereas you have thoroughly researched your views.
Exactly, you think it's either propaganda or not. I take the view of Ellul.
I just assume you are normal, whereas I spend far too much of my time researching political developments.
Zhivago wrote:
You treat it as black or white though - believe it or not, propaganda or not.
That's fundamentally different approach, even though similar.
If I think it’s propaganda I don’t believe it. It’s exactly the same approach from a slight different starting point - I have platforms where I start from a position of trust and those that I don’t but I always question the content, whilst you distrust all from the start. Even those I trust I know will have an angle. Obviously, being a self-proclaimed left wing intellectual, there’s a lot about these days, you think I am just duped by MSM propaganda whereas you have thoroughly researched your views.
I just assume you are normal,
Wrong again. Diggers doesn’t call me the EMB Rowan for no reason.
Mellsblue wrote:
If I think it’s propaganda I don’t believe it. It’s exactly the same approach from a slight different starting point - I have platforms where I start from a position of trust and those that I don’t but I always question the content, whilst you distrust all from the start. Even those I trust I know will have an angle. Obviously, being a self-proclaimed left wing intellectual, there’s a lot about these days, you think I am just duped by MSM propaganda whereas you have thoroughly researched your views.
I just assume you are normal,
Wrong again. Diggers doesn’t call me the EMB Rowan for no reason.
Well I've seen no posts of yours that suggest that you research such things heavily.
Mellsblue wrote:
Wrong again. Diggers doesn’t call me the EMB Rowan for no reason.
Well I've seen no posts of yours that suggest that you research such things heavily.
Get a grip of yourself. It’s a joke.
You're both weird
Though for what it's worth I've seen no posts from Roawn which suggests he researches anything, heavily or otherwise. It's just a bizarre continuation of copy and paste of bollocks.
