Stand With Putin

[ProSense]

It's simply remarkable that everyone didn't applaud Putin's propaganda (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023653222).

It's simply inappropriate that everyone didn't validate his distortions, hypocrisy and misinformation (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023650068).

What the hell are the critics thinking?

[onehandle]

1. But he's soooooo dreamy!

Who needs a progressive dictator anyway.

[ProSense]

2. Leave Putin alone!!! n/t

[Whisp]

4. oh my, just look at those moobs...

:swoon:

[HappyMe]

8. Something has to be done about the shirt shortage.

Winter is coming.

[polichick]

3. In your opinion, is it that there's no truth to any of the statements made?

or is it that it's not convenient that there is some truth there?

[ProSense]

5. It's propaganda.

"In your opinion, is it that there's no truth to any of the statements made?

or is it that it's not convenient that there is some truth there?"

Everyone is agreeing with Putin's mischaracterization of the President's point about American exceptionalism, and Putin clearly doesn't understand what it means.

From the President's speech:

Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.” Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.

America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023642111

Still, should propaganda filled with distortions, hypocrisy and misinformation be hyped because it contains a kernel of truth?

Is that the standard? If that's the case, a lot of RW screed can be hyped based on that standard.

[polichick]

7. Well, propaganda begets propaganda. What a surprise!

[ProSense]

11. Who knew that Putin could get some people to accept propaganda as standard?

He's precedent setting!!!

[polichick]

12. Who knew that Obama could get some people to accept propaganda as standard?

He's a 3D chess wizard!!

[ProSense]

14. No

"He's a 3D chess wizard!!"

...that would be Putin, the standard bearer of democracy who saved Obama's ass.

Leave Putin alone.

No, Putin isn't being smart. Obama is running rings around him
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023650531

[polichick]

15. It's all such bullshit - both sides have been spewing propaganda for decades!

[ProSense]

16. So when you asked if there was any "truth" in his propaganda

"It's all such bullshit - both sides have been spewing propaganda for decades!"

...you were basically implying that propaganda should be accepted for any kernel of truth because "both sides have been spewing" it for decades?

[polichick]

18. There's always a bit of truth in propaganda - otherwise it doesn't work...

I'm just stirring the shit because you seem to accept U.S. propaganda as gospel, but reject even the bits of truth in the other guy's propaganda.

[ProSense]

19. Right,

"There's always a bit of truth in propaganda - otherwise it doesn't work... I'm just stirring the shit because you seem to accept U.S. propaganda as gospel, but reject even the bits of truth in the other guy's propaganda."

...as I said before: Who knew that Putin could get some people to accept propaganda as standard?

You're basically implying that propaganda filled with distortions, hypocrisy and misinformation should be hyped because it contains a kernel of truth.

If that's the case, a lot of RW screed can be hyped based on that standard.

[polichick]

20. Nice spin, but that's not what I've said at all - and you know it...

since your role here is all about propaganda.

Don't worry - I find bits of truth in your stuff too.

[ProSense]

24. No, that's exactly what you're implying. See your first comment in this thread. n/t

[polichick]

26. I didn't "imply" - I asked you a couple of questions. btw, your title is propaganda.

[ProSense]

28. No, the title is snark. n/t

[polichick]

29. Propaganda disguised as snark.

[ProSense]

35. No, it's snark.

Leave Putin alone.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

32. Don't worry about ProSense ...

The full custom gospel sounds of the Reverend ProSense will be broadcast on Radio Free America ensuring that we all no the real truth, and not the truth the other guy is sayin'.

He saves us from ourselves, you know. Instead of questioning, you should just be grateful that you don't have to think for yourself. All that thinking is such a drag anyway.

[polichick]

34. HA! I can't resist stirring things a bit with prosense...

I mean "Reverend ProSense."

[Fantastic Anarchist]

37. Glad you got the reference ...

Was just listening to Rev Horton Heat, so I thought I'd throw that in there for a little extra flavor.

[ProSense]

36. Nah, only pro-Putin propaganda is good and worthy. n/t

[polichick]

39. NO propaganda is good or worthy - that includes Obama's and yours...

That fact that there are tidbits of truth tossed about does not make it good or worthy.

[ProSense]

42. What about yours?

"NO propaganda is good or worthy - that includes Obama's and yours... That fact that there are tidbits of truth tossed about does not make it good or worthy."

That's the point of the OP. Putin's propaganda should not be hyped.

You appear to be answering your own questions:

In your opinion, is it that there's no truth to any of the statements made?

or is it that it's not convenient that there is some truth there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023654178#post3

So much for the runaround.

[polichick]

43. Where's my propaganda? I'm pointing out that you have...

no problem with the administration propaganda that you post everyday, and wondering what part of Putin's statement irked you.

While there are bits of truth from both sides, propaganda is still propaganda.

[ProSense]

45. No, you're referring to my opinion as "propaganda" and

"I'm pointing out that you have. no problem with the administration propaganda that you post everyday, and wondering what part of Putin's statement irked you.

While there are bits of truth from both sides, propaganda is still propaganda."

...and trying to justify Putin's propaganda with a nonsensical argument. You're offering up a false equivalency to justify why it's OK to accept Putin's propaganda.

[polichick]

46. Propaganda is propaganda - imo you pretend that there's a difference...

when the administration does it.

I'd rather recognize it, no matter where it's coming from.

(Which doesn't mean there is not some truth spoken too.)

[ProSense]

52. No, you pretend that your

dismissal of my opinion as "propaganda" justifies Putin's propaganda.

I mean, let's take the issue of LGBT rights. This is not "propaganda"

Pentagon To Announce Equal Benefits For Married Gay Couples
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023461008

Thanks, Obama >> updated, Edith Windsor reacts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023101179

Report: Obama To Meet With LGBT Rights Groups In Russia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023581656

Putin's comment about us being created equal is despicable propaganda.

Pelosi Chides Putin On Gay Rights

Asked about Vladimir Putin's New York Times op-ed, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took the opportunity Thursday to criticize the Russian president's gay rights record.

Putin, Pelosi pointed out, ended his piece with these words: "We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

"I hope that applies to gays and lesbians, too," Pelosi quipped, likely referencing a new Russian law that bans the promotion of "non-traditional" sexual relationships and has stirred up considerable controversy.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/pelosi-chides-putin-on-gay-rights

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023655046

[polichick]

58. Don't start on the gay rights thing - that'll just bring up...

another case of hypocrisy.

[Sheepshank]

30. lol protecting Putin...not so much Obama

how wierd is DU today?

[polichick]

38. I don't protect any of them...

If you did a little reading, you could avoid talking out of your ass every once in a while.

[polichick]

50. Where did I "stroke" or "stick up" for Putin on this thread?

I've said you talk out of your ass because you don't back up your claims.

It's not about seeing who can say "ass."

[MADem]

51. Well, you do know that Putin's government does "seed" the internet with

bullshitters who tout his views.

Maybe some of them found their way here, and are unduly influencing the easily led among us?

Learn all about POOTIE's WEB Brigades here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades

The web brigades (Russian: Веб-бригады ) are alleged astroturfing groups linked to the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. They are purported to be teams of commentators that participate in political blogs and Internet forums to promote disinformation and prevent free discussions of undesirable subjects. Allegations of the existence of web brigades were made in the article "The Virtual Eye of the Big Brother" by French journalist Anna Polyanskaya in April, 2003, in US online media Vestnik Online.[1]

An article "Conspiracy theory" by Alexander Yusupovskiy on 25 April 2003, published in Russian online media Russian Journal, edited by Russian politologist Gleb Pavlovsky, criticized Polyanskaya's theory of web brigades as an attempt at creating myths by people claiming to be Russian liberal thinkers in a response to the massive "sobering up" of the Russian people. A point was made that the observed behaviour of forum participants may be explained without a theory of FSB-affiliated brigades.[2]

It was mentioned in the 2007 sociological research of large groups in Russian society by the RIO-Center, the belief in the existence of web-brigades is widespread in RuNet. Authors say "it's difficult to say whether hypothesis of existence of web-brigades corresponds to reality", but acknowledge that users professing views and methods ascribed to members of web-brigades may be found at all opposition forums of RuNet.[3]

The expression "red web-brigades" (Красные веб-бригады ) used by Anna Polyanskaya as a title to her article is a pun with "Red Brigades".

In February 2009 Russian opposition activist Tatyana Korchevnaya revealed her personal account as an insider in an Internet group, which used methods resembling those of ascribed to web-brigades, but whose goals were entirely different: instead of supporting Putin's regime, members of that group combated defenders of the regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_in_Russia

US journalist Pete Earley described his interviews with former senior Russian intelligence officer Sergei Tretyakov who defected in the United States in 2000. According to him,

Sergei would send an officer to a branch of New York Public Library where he could get access to the Internet without anyone knowing his identity. The officer would post the propaganda on various websites and send it in emails to US publications and broadcasters. Some propaganda would be disguised as educational or scientific reports. ... The studies had been generated at the Center by Russian experts. The reports would be 99% accurate but would always contain a kernel of disinformation that favored Russian foreign policy. ... "Our goal was to cause dissension and unrest inside the US and anti-American feelings abroad"[2]
.

Tretyakov did not specify the targeted web sites, but made clear they selected the sites which are most convenient for distributing the specific disinformation. During his work in New York in the end of 1990s, one of the most frequent disinformation subjects was War in Chechnya.

According to a publication in Russian computer weekly Computerra, "just because it became known that anonymous editors are editing articles in English Wikipedia in the interests of UK and US intelligence and security services, it is also likely that Russian security services are involved in editing Russian Wikipedia, but this is not even interesting to prove it — because everyone knows that security bodies have a special place in structure of our (Russian) state"[3]

[polichick]

53. You think the U.S. and other countries don't "seed the internet?"

[MADem]

54. Not the way the Russians and Chinese do. We probably should, though.

We're a bit behind the curve on that score, I'd say.

[2naSalit]

61. Are you certain about that?

May I remind you... NSA? And the regular complaints about trolls paid and otherwise?

[MADem]

63. NSA seems to do more reading than writing.

Folks like the hard working soldiers at PLA 61398 do a much more thorough job of covering the waterfront, I should think.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/02/chinese-cyber-attacks

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/technology/chinas-army-is-seen-as-tied-to-hacking-against-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/meet-comment-crew-chinas-military-hackers.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLA_Unit_61398

[rug]

23. Propaganda!

There are Propgandists on DU?!?

Alert the authorities!

[AAO]

60. No, that makes America the dupes of the world.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Commie Brain Washing, I tell ya...

Next thing you know, someone will see the Queen of Diamonds and attempt to assassinate Obama.



Purity of Essence.....

[polichick]

9. Angela Lansbury! :)

[phleshdef]

25. Occassionaly theres some truth in statements Newt Gingrich makes.

But as I said in another thread, if the messenger isn't generally credible, then I could give a fuck what their message is. Putin can take his lecture and his little Napoleon complex and choke on it.

[Sheepshank]

31. Perfect...+1

[Fantastic Anarchist]

27. It's all of a sudden conveniently inconvenient.

I, for one, apologize for the convenience.

[MADem]

47. It was a sleazy tactic to try to sway people who don't look too closely.

I'm not saying people who bought Pootie's bullshit were stupid, they just didn't have a sense of who he was, and who he is, what he wants, and what he is about.

In brief, he's all about acquiring and maintaining power. He's not about a better world, or puppies and kittens, or equal rights for everyone (least of all in his own country).

Pootie was just using every tool to make himself look good, look human, look like "a regular guy" instead of a strongman running a faux democracy. He was just "catapulting the propapaganda."

We didn't like it--or buy it--when that other guy did it, either, I'm sure you recall....

Here are a few examples of the tactic, leading up to this latest major crap on the editorial pages of none other than the NYT--a real coup (tee hee, pardon the term!), until someone started pulling the string. Remember, these weren't gamed into publication by private interests, but by the government's personal PR firm:

The op-eds placed by Ketchum for Russia, according to the filings, are:


A March 2010 CNBC piece by Peter Gerendasi, then managing partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers Russia, that praises the government of then-President Dmitry Medvedev for its “strategic priorities (of) diversification, innovation, promoting small business, supporting families and strengthening the country's financial system so that it can provide the investment capital that will enable business to grow and people to realize their potential.” Gerendasi declined to comment on the piece and PricewaterhouseCoopers said it did not pay Ketchum to place the piece and declined to comment further.

An April 2010 CNBC piece by Kingsmill Bond, then chief strategist at the Moscow investment bank Troika Dialog, that ran under the headline “Russia—Europe's Bright Light of Growth.” It called Russia possibly “the most dynamic place on the continent” for investors. Bond, now at Citigroup, told ProPublica he could not recall Ketchum’s role in the piece.


A September 2010 Huffington Post piece, titled “President Medvedev's Project Of Modernization,” by Pabst, the University of Kent academic. While acknowledging human rights and corruption problems, the thrust of Pabst’s op-ed was praise for Medvedev’s “transformational vision for Russia's domestic politics and foreign policy.” Pabst told ProPublica he was contacted by a Ketchum subcontractor, Portland Communications, and that he was not paid to write the piece. The piece, as well as another he wrote for a web site run by Ketchum, “reflect my own ideas and arguments,” he said in an email.

A January 2012 CNBC piece by Laura Brank, the head of the Russia practice for the international law firm Dechert. Brank praised the Russian government for working to overcome the perception of an inhospitable investment climate “through the implementation and enforcement of laws designed to better protect business and reduce corruption.” Brank did not respond to requests for comment.

http://www.propublica.org/article/from-russia-with-pr-ketchum-cnbc


Ketchum makes millions off their Pootie account--as the link elucidates. They're plainly earning their money, but I'm sure they are thinking that it's just damn the bad luck that they were outed by ProPublica!

[polichick]

49. Sure, he does what all politicians do. No surprise.

[MADem]

55. No, not really. He's gone above and beyond what "most other politicians do."

As his longstanding account at Ketchum indicates.

I have to wonder if Bush recommended the firm, seeing as his administration used to do business with them...you know, while he was looking into his eyes and seeing his soul, and all?

This can't be minimized, you know.

[polichick]

57. "while he was looking into his eyes and seeing his soul, and all?" lol - I'd forgotten...

about that.

[Skraxx]

10. I Hear He Fights Bears Bare Handed!

Get it?

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. Here are some equally persuasive links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023653107

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018478212

[OregonBlue]

17. How many people raving about how wonderful Putin is would want him as president of the USA?

[leftstreet]

21. Where are DUers 'raving about how wonderful Putin is?'

I've seen interesting critiques of his editorial

I've seen threads that look like teen girl sleepovers, where a few people fear Obama's poster is being torn down and replaced with Putin's

That's about it

[Whisp]

22. Tammy Whinette - Stand by Your Putin

[ProSense]

33. .

[Whisp]

40. and we have Don't Stand by Obama, also by Whinette.

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2013, 03:08 PM - Edit history (2)

this is the theme song for the super left peace mongering progressives so progressive they forgot progress means steps, not magical teleportation to Utopia, Right Fucking Now!



Sometimes it's hard to be a progo™
Giving all your hate to just one man
You'll have good times
Hoping he'll have bad times
Doin things that you don't understand
But if you despise him
You'll not forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you scorn him
Or never be proud of him
Cause after all he's just a black man

Don't stand by Obama
Give him two middle fingers to cling to
And something harsh to come to
when Pugs are cold and evil...

Don't stand by Obama
And show the world you hate him
Keep giving all the disrespect you can
Don't stand by this mannnn

[snappyturtle]

41. I don't think I'd look for an offer from the

State Department to join it's diplomatic team if I
were you.

[Rex]

44. Never stand with a dictator, some day you two might be

standing in line for the hangman. Dictatorships work that way.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. So you are joining the Olympic boycott or are you standing with Putin

on his proud day? I am boycotting. Obama says it would be wrong to boycott Putin's games. Very wrong. “I want to just make very clear right now: I do not think it’s appropriate to boycott the Olympics,” the president told reporters at a White House news conference.

So who you standing with? Russia? Can't boycott 'cause you don't want to upset Putin? Oh, I know they say 'its about the athletes' but that's just a way of saying 'we adore anti gay laws and we stand with Vald!!!! Centrists for Putin's Games!!!!!'
Boycott with me or you Ski with Vald.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

59. What a fatuous bunch of malarkey

Refusing to boycott the Olympic games is a Righteous position. Why punish athletes over a country's laws of their own land? How many nations boycotted China Olympics? How many wonderfully progressive European countries are boycotting these upcoming Olympics?

[stonecutter357]

62. K&R

[Scurrilous]

64. K & R

[DisgustipatedinCA]

65. Only a complete fool would place their trust in any head of state.

That goes for Vladimir Putin, just as it does for Barack Obama. Separate from that, there's nothing at all wrong with acknowledging truth where you find it. Vladimir Putin, the flawed, power-hungry, intelligent Premier of Russia, brought up some very good points in his OP-Ed. Quit trying to make this place resemble a goddamned elementary school playground. Aren't you ever ashamed for bringing the level of discourse to such a stupid and base place? Nothing I've said constitutes rocket science--it's the kind of thing that any adult should see without a problem, without having to resort to this motherfucking stupidity. What's wrong with you that makes you have a desire to make this place so dysfunctional? If your line of questioning holds sway, this website is headed for submoron territory. I don't want to be a part of Dumbfuck Underground.

[ProSense]

66. Actually,

"That goes for Vladimir Putin, just as it does for Barack Obama. Separate from that, there's nothing at all wrong with acknowledging truth where you find it. Vladimir Putin, the flawed, power-hungry, intelligent Premier of Russia, brought up some very good points in his OP-Ed. Quit trying to make this place resemble a goddamned elementary school playground. Aren't you ever ashamed for bringing the level of discourse to such a stupid and base place? Nothing I've said constitutes rocket science--it's the kind of thing that any adult should see without a problem, without having to resort to this motherfucking stupidity. What's wrong with you that makes you have a desire to make this place so dysfunctional? If your line of questioning holds sway, this website is headed for submoron territory. I don't want to be a part of Dumbfuck Underground."

...his op-ed was filled with distortions, hypocrisy and misinformation should be not be hyped because it contains a kernel of truth.

If that's the case, a lot of RW screed can be hyped based on that standard. No, I'm not "ashamed " of pointing that out.

If you want to believe that hyping nonsense makes one an "adult," then that's on you. It's interesting that you think your comment is elevating the intellectual level of any discussion.

HRW dispatches : what Putin didn-t-tell american people
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023657858

[DisgustipatedinCA]

67. My comment is certainly NOT elevating the intellectual level of the discussion. It's an attempt

...to make you quit dragging the discourse down further than it's already been dragged. It doesn't make for a happy post, but I do believe posts like this are necessary if DU is to stop sucking, in the parlance of the site administrators.

[ProSense]

68. I hate to break this to you:

"It doesn't make for a happy post, but I do believe posts like this are necessary if DU is to stop sucking, in the parlance of the site administrators."

..Your comment isn't doing anything to make DU "stop sucking." In fact, your comment belongs on, to quote you, "Dumbfuck Underground." It doesn't belong on DU.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

69. The "I know you are, but what am I" reply

The prosecution has no further questions, since the defense was good enough to provide a perfect example of the dumbing down of this discussion board.

[ProSense]

70. The lame comeback response

Shouldn't you be looking for uptopia: "Dumbfuck Underground."

I mean, this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023654178#post65) would fit right in there.