Russia

He's prolly more legit among Russian voters than our corrupt stooges with 24% of the eligible Canadian vote under them. 

But when his drinking and lusting and his hunger

for power became known to more and more people,

the demands to do something about this outrageous
man became louder and louder.

hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey

Ra Ra Harputin

Where? Who is anti-Semitic? Let us rack and quarter him.

I know it's everywhere!

Monitoring and Combatting Anti-Semitism and the Assault on Israel's legitimacy, at the Guardian and its Blog, 'Comment is Free'

http://cifwatch.com/

ps Babble search of 'Information Clearing House': search found 7487 items

Call the IDF!

And how many were added by you?    Whats your point anyhow, that rancid anti-semtism is ok because its only PART of the official menu?  Or that my vigilance against racist of ALL kinds makes me some kind of supporter of the IDF?   We've been through this before and apparently youve learned nothing.

Slumberjack wrote:

ICH does seem to be obsessed with all things Israel, but as far as linking to news sites displaying overt and unchecked racism in the comments sections, CBC.ca links appear here routinely.

Its not just the often racist comments -although the site does say it has policies allowing them to edit the most offensive, something it rarely enforces. It also has a long history of running stories by well known and indesputably racist authors, not unlike PressTV, another of NDPPs faves. Or does spouting some predictable anti-US-"Zio" dross, with a slightly Marxist sounding gloss, now make it ok here?

So Fidel - that great champion of true democracy, justice and honesty supports Putin - why anyone would take seriously anything Fidel writes or links to is a mystery.   The definition of hypocrisy.

As for links to racists sites - not all racism is equal on Babble

Erik Redburn wrote:

Its not just the often racist comments -although the site does say it has policies allowing them to edit the most offensive, something it rarely enforces. It also has a long history of running stories by well known and indesputably racist authors, not unlike PressTV, another of NDPPs faves. Or does spouting some predictable anti-US-"Zio" dross, with a slightly Marxist sounding gloss, now make it ok here?

I hope you're not including Pepe Escobar in that category of "well known and indesputably racist authors". His writing on international affairs is  excellent, i.m.o. He's from Brazil and writes from a perspective that might best be described as reflecting the "non-aligned movement" of nations.

I think so too 1springgarden...which is why I posted it.

And because it was about Russia, unlike our friend ER's contributions here today.

Dostoyevsky wrote:

So Fidel - that great champion of true democracy, justice and honesty supports Putin - why anyone would take seriously anything Fidel writes or links to is a mystery.  

And I'd vouch your character if you had any.

So why don't you make your case to ban Press TV, Information Clearing House and whatever else your little heart desires Eric, make a list, browbeat the mods and whomever else into supporting you and then let me know. I will so advise these sites and my friend Pepe Escobar as well  that Rabble.ca considers them to be racist and anti-semitic and unacceptable for the likes of this 'progressive' site. Now go play elsewhere with your nonsense please.

And Escobar rightly points out to us that "Al-Qa'eda" = Al-CIA'duh. I suppose that could be construed as anti-Semitic as well.

NDPP wrote:

So why don't you make your case to ban Press TV, Information Clearing House and whatever else your little heart desires Eric, make a list, browbeat the mods and whomever else into supporting you and then let me know. I will so advise these sites and my friend Pepe Escobar as well  that Rabble.ca considers them to be racist and anti-semitic and unacceptable for the likes of this 'progressive' site. Now go play elsewhere with your nonsense please.

Nonsense?  Unlike some here I'm not one to go running to the mods everytime I see some bullshit piling up here.  Or feel my personal belief systems threatened.  But That response is just the kind of bullshit that messes up any chance for decent discourse here --did I say Escobar was racist himself?  No, I specifically did not.  But could you not find some other better source for this kind of material?  I bet I could find similar things without resorting to some crap filled websites set up for little but defending a politician who, unfortunately for some black vs white thinkers, has indeed a long history of using antiSemtic tracts to boost populist support.  Not to mention other crimes.  Gosh, it would be nice if international politics had real heros we could just follow blindly in pursut of the greater good.   Until that great day though we can still avoid some obvious cess-pits.

Slumberjack wrote:

Quote:

that which Erik Redburn quoted from the ICH peanut gallery, which shan't be re-quoted here.

Quoting a news article is one thing.  Cutting and posting racist comments, even to prove a point.....now there's got to be an injunction against that somewhere.

Oh so you now agree that its racist?  Good, then I can delete it again, at least until I need it to make another obvious point.

*blatantly anti-Semtic material deleted*

(but can still be recovered by anyone willing to verify my point, just link to practically material there to do with Israel/Jews)

Ok.  I'm in favour of getting back to the discussion about Fidel.  Except with much more profanity than what we have here so far in discussing the other issues.

YOu seem to be skimming over half my argument again.  I also noted that the racist anti-semitic commentrary is closer to the norm than the exception there, and is rarely if ever deleted as it often is elsewhere.   As I also noted, both this and the other pro-Ahmedinajad site PressTV, often carry overtly racist antiSemitic sources an editorials that others wouldn't touch.  Whether this particular scribbler is or is not is almost beside the point there.  If you want to post P. Escobar then why not from somewhere else, can't he get published anywhere else?

Slumberjack wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

Oh so you now agree that its racist?  Good, then I can delete it again, at least until I need it to make another obvious point.

One finds plenty of examples everywhere in the commentariat, every day.  The NYT, CNN, CBC, The Grope, Sun News, etc.  You want the act of linking to them verboten across the board on account of racist reader comments?  Fine by me but lets have one standard shall we?

i agree that if the linked article isn't itself promoting racist ideas then it should be fine but one should question why the article/site attracts racist anti-semite commentors 

We'll probably need a mod directive or something on this one, and since we're mostly averse toward seeking the intervention and guidance of authority...I guess it pretty much leaves Fidel to snitch us out.

Maybe the mods Should decide on this, but I'll leave the 'snitching' to others more comfortable with it thanks.  I'd just like to see these kinds of arguments coming from less toxic sites, not like theres any shortage of them either.   If we have to do without links to National Post or Sun editorials bashing NDNs or poor Muslim immigrants, in the interest of balance, I could probably live without that too. Though I can live with them too if posted here as 'what the F** are *they* on-about-again' threads.

1springgarden wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

Gee that wasn't too hard -Asia times, Pepe Escobar: 

http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CI12Df01.html

Does this place too regularly publish holocaust deniers and the like?  If it does, I'll guess I'll just have to google further for a few more seconds.

No www.atimes.com is not like that.  Just hardcore foreign policy writing from a variety of asian perspectives.

I've never noticed much underhanded there eiher, no, but possible I miss stuff too. 

And yes Dostoevsky, how about more about Putins victory and what they might mean for Russian-US-Me relations?  Got to be decent commentary out there.

tp

Dostoyevsky wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

Oh so you now agree that its racist?  Good, then I can delete it again, at least until I need it to make another obvious point.

One finds plenty of examples everywhere in the commentariat, every day.  The NYT, CNN, CBC, The Grope, Sun News, etc.  You want the act of linking to them verboten across the board on account of racist reader comments?  Fine by me but lets have one standard shall we?

i agree that if the linked article isn't itself promoting racist ideas then it should be fine but one should question why the article/site attracts racist anti-semite commentors 

That could be a decent balance too, yes.  Enough of this drift for now, agreed.

This thread's title should be changed to "babblers taking shots at other babblers."

Erik, if you find something racist or anti-Semitic about the site link posted by NDPP, please be specific.  Quote the offending content.

Regardless, everyone, please get back on topic and stop sniping at each other.

Thanks.

The candidates' views are irrelevant; the public's views are of marginal interest. The question of who won and who lost is also uninteresting, since everyone, even those who are paid to pretend otherwise, know the outcome has been predetermined.

The point of a managed election, after all, is not to pick a winner but to reinforce the legitimacy of an illegitimate regime.

By those criteria, last weekend's Russian election did achieve some successes. Apparently, millions of people did actually vote-some 64 percent, according to (possibly exaggerated) official statistics, though outsiders report "brisk" turnout as well. This is a major achievement for the second Putin presidential regime: It implies that a lot of Russians still believe, at some level, that participation matters, even if the outcome is known well in advance.

The regime also scored some points by not overstating its victory too much. Had Vladimir Putin followed in the footsteps of President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, who claimed an utterly implausible 80 percent victory in 2010, he would have made himself look foolish. As it was, the 64 percent Putin claimed is just barely plausible-independent monitors think the real number hovered around 50 percent-but at least he conceded that some other people might have received votes, giving the whole exercise a thin veneer of respectability.

I guess this just shows that when maybe 1/2 the population of a country likes a strong familiar leader - democracy is weak and useless or useful to give the him the cover of "the people's approval"?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2012/03/despite_claims_of_fraud_vladimir_putin_s_presidential_election_victory_is_still_a_big_win_.html