The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[joepistole]

Excuse me for changing the two all caps words. I wanted to save this, as have had need of it many times, when you dismiss facts (plagarized or requoted from Western original sources by ChinaDaily). I quote ChinaDaily as I first noticed the facts there as I read it daily.

Well, as we have discussed many times BillyT, you have never been able to prove your allegations China Daily has plagiarized Western sources and the China Daily really is the voice of the Chinese government to the Western world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Daily

Comrade Schmelzer has never been able to make a connection between any of the many independent sources he summarily and routinely dismisses as NATO sources or that the information they report is incorrect.

 

[Schmelzer]

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this isn’t Mother Russia. The court doesn’t intervene. YOU seem to have a great deal of difficulty understand that.

Ok, a small formal error, but it has nothing to do with Russia, where this would be an error too, because the system is a similar one. There have been interventions, of course, by those who thought that these New Deal laws are unconstitutional, and have tried to use the Supreme Court to reach their aims. Their success or failure depends on the court decisions. Before 1937, many were successful, later not. This was what Roosevelt has reached.

The New Deal was a series of laws which were enacted during the Great Recession. Some of those laws were challenged and some were found constitutional and some were not. Just because the members of the court change, it doesn’t follow that prior court rulings also change.

So what? The unconstitutional laws have been modified, so that one could at least claim that prior decisions are respected, which is not more than the claim that the constitution is respected. In practice, this is nothing but a propaganda claim if the new court does not consistently reject all these modified unconstitutional laws as unconstitutional.

And, in fact, the same mechanism hits back. Once all these laws have been challenged at that time, and the judges at that time have decided in favor of the constitutionality of these laws, these decisions of the past are not overridden.

The unfortunate fact which you want to ignore is Roosevelt followed the law. There was nothing untoward in anything he did. Roosevelt followed the constitution.

Something named "unfortunate fact" by you is always not a fact, but a propagandistic claim. If it would be really a fact, you would not have to claim that it is one.

And even if it is true, it means, that the constitution was too weak. It did not contain sufficient defenses to protect itself. This is a known objection of anarchistic libertarians against minimal state libertarians: It is almost impossible to have a constitution which would force the state to remain a minimal one.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, your labeling unpleasant facts as “NATO PROPAGANDA” rather than addressing them rationally is just a way for you to dismiss the many unpleasant facts you need to dismiss in order to attempt to make your case.

There is, indeed, some symmetry. What you name "facts", I name NATO propaganda. What I post, from various sources, and think is correct information, you name "Russian propaganda". At this level, there is symmetry. Except for the minor point that I don't like to cry "THIS IS FACT!!!11" as some other people.

Which side is correct, the readers have to decide. By looking at the quoted sources, by evaluating their reliability, by evaluating the counterarguments proposed by the other side.

The fact is all the media groups, the institutions of higher learning you summarily dismiss as NATAO propaganda aren’t propaganda nor are they in any way related to NATO.

This is your claim. I have presented counterevidence, where all these media groups have been catched distorting the information in a similar, coordinates way, despite the correct information was visible and accessible to all of the journalists who have written about this, simply by following the links to the source which has published the original information. You remember this early MH17 video, where the guys on the ground have talked immediately after about a fighter hitting the big plane, and, then, the fighter hit, and they were searching for two planes? Where this info was posted in the transcript of the whole video on the Australian site, but the information that the plane was hit by a fighter plane was hidden from essentially all the Western media?
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315607
Given the circumstances - your challenge to find evidence at July 18, my reaction finding these distortions in the July 17 papers - this does not seem to be an accident, but is the rule.

Yet you automatically and mindlessly accept as gospel anything the Russian state tells you.

Not at all. You automatically and mindlessly accuse me of this. How often my sources posted here come from Russian state-owned media? Some, but in fact only a small minority.

 

[Schmelzer]

Well, as we have discussed many times BillyT, you have never been able to prove your allegations China Daily has plagiarized Western sources and the China Daily really is the voice of the Chinese government to the Western world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Daily

Comrade Schmelzer has never been able to make a connection between any of the many independent sources he summarily and routinely dismisses as NATO sources or that the information they report is incorrect.

I have, they have all been found to distribute the same distortion of the unquestioned and unquestionable original information, and essentially from the same day you have challenged me to make such a proof: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315607

And, sorry, for news agencies there is no such thing as "plagiarizing". Plagiarizing is an accusation which is meaningful when the text is claimed to be an original invention of the author. A claim which increases th value of scientific papers as well as of belletristics. In the domain of reporting news, this, instead, heavily decreases the value - to post own inventions as news is almost the worst thing one can say about a news source.

 

[Billy T]

Well, as we have discussed many times BillyT, you have never been able to prove your allegations China Daily has plagiarized Western sources...

But I did, in three different post of the BRIC + New & comments thread. For a repeat of post 947 there:

Yes. I read it most days, but as usual China Daily is not inventing facts, but reporting them from western sources. For example for this case:
But if Cnbc's Squawk Box is not western enough for you, see also:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/57f91341-16b9-4b8f-a9c2-98d71079d28c
OR:
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...why_its_actual_economy_will_be_just_fine.html
And many more.
You need to stop your "knee- jerk" reaction of saying anything I quote from China Daily is "Chinese propaganda" as most of the time they are just re-quoting some western source. Years of reading ChinaDaily has taught me they mainly plagarize or openly quote from western sources, so only to show you are wrong, do I bother to find their western source (IN THIS CASE).

I.e. in this case your were given THREE links to same thing appearing in ChinaDaily that had appeared earlier in three different western sources.
- - - - -
Here is an example from today's issue: (http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015-12/15/content_22716062.htm) ChinaDaily does in this case admit that they are just quoting foreign source (SPA):
"DUBAI - Saudi Arabia on Tuesday announced the formation of a 34-state Islamic military coalition to combat terrorism, according to a joint statement published on state news agency SPA. "The countries here mentioned have decided on the formation of a military alliance led by Saudi Arabia to fight terrorism, with a joint operations centre based in Riyadh to coordinate and support military operations," the statement said"

China Daily does not have "stringers" or representives in Dubai and certainly not photogrphers to have taken this photo which ChinaDaily published with text.

At least this time it is not plagerism - the source is given.
BTW, many western newpapers carried the story yesterday, but from your POV it is just "Chinese Propaganda" as it appears in China Daily today.

 

[joepistole]

I have, they have all been found to distribute the same distortion of the unquestioned and unquestionable original information, and essentially from the same day you have challenged me to make such a proof: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315607

And, sorry, for news agencies there is no such thing as "plagiarizing". Plagiarizing is an accusation which is meaningful when the text is claimed to be an original invention of the author. A claim which increases th value of scientific papers as well as of belletristics. In the domain of reporting news, this, instead, heavily decreases the value - to post own inventions as news is almost the worst thing one can say about a news source.

You are being dishonest comrade. Anytime you want to prove any of the many sources you summarily dismiss as NATO propagandists, I'm ready. Let's see it.

 

[joepistole]

Ok, a small formal error, but it has nothing to do with Russia, where this would be an error too, because the system is a similar one. There have been interventions, of course, by those who thought that these New Deal laws are unconstitutional, and have tried to use the Supreme Court to reach their aims. Their success or failure depends on the court decisions. Before 1937, many were successful, later not. This was what Roosevelt has reached.

So what? The unconstitutional laws have been modified, so that one could at least claim that prior decisions are respected, which is not more than the claim that the constitution is respected. In practice, this is nothing but a propaganda claim if the new court does not consistently reject all these modified unconstitutional laws as unconstitutional.

And, in fact, the same mechanism hits back. Once all these laws have been challenged at that time, and the judges at that time have decided in favor of the constitutionality of these laws, these decisions of the past are not overridden.

Something named "unfortunate fact" by you is always not a fact, but a propagandistic claim. If it would be really a fact, you would not have to claim that it is one.

And even if it is true, it means, that the constitution was too weak. It did not contain sufficient defenses to protect itself. This is a known objection of anarchistic libertarians against minimal state libertarians: It is almost impossible to have a constitution which would force the state to remain a minimal one.

There is, indeed, some symmetry. What you name "facts", I name NATO propaganda. What I post, from various sources, and think is correct information, you name "Russian propaganda". At this level, there is symmetry. Except for the minor point that I don't like to cry "THIS IS FACT!!!11" as some other people.

Which side is correct, the readers have to decide. By looking at the quoted sources, by evaluating their reliability, by evaluating the counterarguments proposed by the other side.

This is your claim. I have presented counterevidence, where all these media groups have been catched distorting the information in a similar, coordinates way, despite the correct information was visible and accessible to all of the journalists who have written about this, simply by following the links to the source which has published the original information. You remember this early MH17 video, where the guys on the ground have talked immediately after about a fighter hitting the big plane, and, then, the fighter hit, and they were searching for two planes? Where this info was posted in the transcript of the whole video on the Australian site, but the information that the plane was hit by a fighter plane was hidden from essentially all the Western media?
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315607
Given the circumstances - your challenge to find evidence at July 18, my reaction finding these distortions in the July 17 papers - this does not seem to be an accident, but is the rule.

Not at all. You automatically and mindlessly accuse me of this. How often my sources posted here come from Russian state-owned media? Some, but in fact only a small minority.

The facts are, once again, you are not being honest. Your error wasn't a small "formal" error, it was and is a major error. And once again instead of disproving, your are summarily dismissing fact as propaganda. Truth isn't propaganda comrade.

The unfortunate fact for you is you have absolutely no evidence Roosevelt didn't observe the due practice of law.

 

[joepistole]

But I did, in three different post of the BRIC + New & comments thread. For a repeat of post 947 there:
I.e. in this case your were given THREE links to same thing appearing in ChinaDaily that had appeared earlier in three different western sources.
- - - - -
Here is an example from today's issue: (http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015-12/15/content_22716062.htm) ChinaDaily does in this case admit that they are just quoting foreign source (SPA):
"DUBAI - Saudi Arabia on Tuesday announced the formation of a 34-state Islamic military coalition to combat terrorism, according to a joint statement published on state news agency SPA. "The countries here mentioned have decided on the formation of a military alliance led by Saudi Arabia to fight terrorism, with a joint operations centre based in Riyadh to coordinate and support military operations," the statement said"

China Daily does not have "stringers" or representives in Dubai and certainly not photogrphers to have taken this photo which ChinaDaily published with text.

At least this time it is not plagerism - the source is given.
BTW, many western newpapers carried the story yesterday, but from your POV it is just "Chinese Propaganda" as it appears in China Daily today.

I haven't looked into this, the China Daily may well plagiarize. I really don't care. But the prior discussion we had on this issue, you had no evidence the material under discussion was plagiarized. And that doesn't change the fact China Daily is the voice of the Chinese government (per previous references). So anything published in the China Daily should be read and understood with that in mind. China's government isn't known for its veracity.

 

[Schmelzer]

The unfortunate fact for you is you have absolutely no evidence Roosevelt didn't observe the due practice of law.

He reached what he liked to reach. His Big State laws of the New Deal have not been rejected as unconstitutional. This is what matters.

If his methods were legal, then the constitution was too weak to be defended - it allowed things which can be used to make it worthless.

Anytime you want to prove any of the many sources you summarily dismiss as NATO propagandists, I'm ready. Let's see it.

Can somebody explain me what this means? To prove a source?

 

[joepistole]

He reached what he liked to reach. His Big State laws of the New Deal have not been rejected as unconstitutional. This is what matters.

As I have repeatedly explained to you, he didn't "reach what he liked to reach". As previously pointed out, the laws which Roosevelt wanted and were overturned by Supreme Court rulings were terminated and never restored (e.g. The National Recovery Administration).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration

So Roosevelt didn't get what he wanted. The courts didn't overturn every New Deal law. They only overturned a few. Your premise is just flat out wrong and easily verifiable as such. Roosevelt not only didn't get some of the laws he wanted, he didn't get the Supreme Court he wanted for all the reasons that have been previously and repeatedly explained to you.

If his methods were legal, then the constitution was too weak to be defended - it allowed things which can be used to make it worthless.

Oh, and how exactly does that make any kind of sense and please do be specific. Do you even know what is in the US Constitution? So, you think the right to free speech is worthless? You think the structure and organization of the largest economy in the world is worthless?

The unfortunate fact for you is the US Constitution was upheld and the US has a very long history of rule of law. Your beloved Mother Russia does not.

Can somebody explain me what this means? To prove a source?

1) You should be able to prove a verifiable nexus between the agencies you claim are NATO propagandists and NATO as you have asserted.

2) You should be able to prove their material is false or misleading.

You have not been able to do either.

 

[Schmelzer]

As I have repeatedly explained to you, he didn't "reach what he liked to reach". As previously pointed out, the laws which Roosevelt wanted and were overturned by Supreme Court rulings were terminated and never restored (e.g. The National Recovery Administration). So Roosevelt didn't get what he wanted. The courts didn't overturn every New Deal law. They only overturned a few.

Roosevelt got what he wanted 1937. They overturned a few before 1937, after this, they didn't. This was sufficient for him. A lot of New Deal laws are now accepted as constitutional, based on the Supreme Court precedence cases, which was sufficient for the Big Central State which the US has know, and which is far from what the founding fathers had planned.

Your premise is just flat out wrong and easily verifiable as such. Roosevelt not only didn't get some of the laws he wanted, he didn't get the Supreme Court he wanted for all the reasons that have been previously and repeatedly explained to you.

Yes, Roosevelt has had a hard fight with the defenders of the constitution, some battles he has lost, but he has won the war. The US has a Big Central State now, and Roosevelt's New Deal was one of the main, largest steps in this direction.

Do you even know what is in the US Constitution? So, you think the right to free speech is worthless?

It is not completely worthless. But is there really free speech in a country where you can end up life in prison for owning some pictures and can be fired by the state for using the wrong words?

You think the structure and organization of the largest economy in the world is worthless?

Why should I? Of course, the constitution was worth a lot protecting some freedom of the markets. But this is also in the past, in a process of degeneration. The US is overregulated today, and this becomes only worse.

Just to clarify: If it takes some hundreds of years to make a constitution worthless, it was certainly worth something. It has done a lot of good to people at that time when it was yet worth something. And it is worth something - even if much less than 100 years ago - even now. Because even now people can argue that what happens today is in contradiction with the constitution. It does not give them much, because all the Supreme Court judges are defenders of the Big State wanted by republicans as well as liberals.

1) You should be able to prove a verifiable nexus between the agencies you claim are NATO propagandists and NATO as you have asserted.

This would be stupid. Because it is easy to hide a nexus. Say some CIA agent controls a source. That he is a CIA agent is hidden, the method used to control is unknown (ownership? Blackmail of the owner? Paying the owner for publishing the propaganda?) and intentionally hard to prove. But I'm supposed to accept all this as reliable until I'm able to prove such things? Sorry, I'm not interested in buying bridges you have to sell.

I prefer another method. I evaluate what they write. If a lot of very different sources writes the same lies, I expect the same lying source behind it.

2) You should be able to prove their material is false or misleading.

In the example http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315607 I have done this. The clearly most interesting information was hidden, thus, the information was clearly misleading. This was not the only case where I have found the same misleading information in many different Western sources, but usually I do not make a documentation about this. But this was what I have found immediately after your challenge, which was, by the way, even more restricted by the condition that is has to be about the Ukraine and anti-Russian.

 

[Billy T]

... China's government isn't known for its veracity. ...

What government is?
However, China Daily is much like the two main newspapers of Sao Paulo - they steal articles from all over the world - my last ChinaDaily example, yesterday in post 1504, was from SPA of Dubia. If you don't mind getting your news a day or two late, you do get more diverse POVs than found in typical US newspapers, but NYT, WSJ, Washington Post, International Tribune, Gardian and sevaral others I rarely see do have vaious global view points covered.

The average American, one who chants "USA, USA, USA" is quite well brain washed by his new sources - the USA can do no wrong. The fact is that the US has killed in the last decade more than a dozen times more innocent people with carpet bombing in Iraq alone than any other government has any where. You will not find this report in very few US newspapers:

Nearly half a million people have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an academic study published in the United States on Tuesday.

That toll is far higher than the nearly 115,000 violent civilian deaths reported by the British-based group Iraq Body Count, which bases its tally on media reports, hospital and morgue records, and official and non-governmental accounts.

The latest estimate by university researchers in the United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health covers not only violent deaths but other avoidable deaths linked to the invasion, insurgencies and subsequent social breakdown.

 

[Billy T]

I was adding this by edit to post 1511 but every thing was gone when I opened "edit" so I'm putting it here:

Iraq was much better off under Saddam than in the current US made chaos. Free food for the poor at distribution centers, very cheap gasoline, electric power 24/7, etc. and especially for women it was the best place to live in all the mid east: They could drive cars, dress in tight skirts*, with face uncovered, go out at night alone, never needed a male relative's permission for any thing - contrast that with US backed Saudi Arabia. This you will never find in any US newspaper. Does that proove the US papers are "the voice of the US government" ? Certainly ChinaDaily rarely is critical of the Chinese govement. So what? That does not make its news "Chinese Propaganda" especially when most of it is just plagarized or quoting external soures.

* Doing that if pretty was not wise as Saddam's two son, did take them from the street and sexually make use of them for a week or two before they "accidently drowned." Generally speaking rape was much less common than in the US.** Iraq was a Moslem culture; just not at the highest levels.

** One can argue as Tiassa does here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-rape-culture.153010/page-31#post-3346822
That the US has a "rape culture" If true, we certainly need to learn from the Moslems.

 

[krash661]

the worst part of it is china's econ data-- it is tough to get data from them-- even then there is a chance it is not accurate.

 

[joepistole]

the worst part of it is china's econ data-- it is tough to get data from them-- even then there is a chance it is not accurate.

China is known to fudge its economic data and China's lack of transparency makes it difficult to know what is truly going on in China.

 

[joepistole]

What government is?

All Western governments, you see, in the West and in some Asian countries they have this thing called a free press and government transparency, things your beloved China doesn't have. Western countries don't own and control the media as does your beloved China.

However, China Daily is much like the two main newspapers of Sao Paulo - they steal articles from all over the world - my last ChinaDaily example, yesterday in post 1504, was from SPA of Dubia. If you don't mind getting your news a day or two late, you do get more diverse POVs than found in typical US newspapers, but NYT, WSJ, Washington Post, International Tribune, Gardian and sevaral others I rarely see do have vaious global view points covered.

Whether they steal isn't the issue. China's agencies are well known for the theft of many things up to and including intellectual properties.

The average American, one who chants "USA, USA, USA" is quite well brain washed by his new sources - the USA can do no wrong. The fact is that the US has killed in the last decade more than a dozen times more innocent people with carpet bombing in Iraq alone than any other government has any where. You will not find this report in very few US newspapers:

Well brain washing is interesting term, but it isn't really useful or descriptive of Americans at large. It is certainly the case the Republican entertainment machine has and continues to manipulate the Republican base, but is that brain washing? Patriotism isn't brainwashing.

 

[joepistole]

Roosevelt got what he wanted 1937. They overturned a few before 1937, after this, they didn't. This was sufficient for him. A lot of New Deal laws are now accepted as constitutional, based on the Supreme Court precedence cases, which was sufficient for the Big Central State which the US has know, and which is far from what the founding fathers had planned.

Except as has been repeatedly pointed out to you he didn't. He didn't get the agencies he wanted. He didn't get the changes to the court system he wanted. You know, unfortunately for you, facts do matter.

Yes, Roosevelt has had a hard fight with the defenders of the constitution, some battles he has lost, but he has won the war. The US has a Big Central State now, and Roosevelt's New Deal was one of the main, largest steps in this direction.

Dissent is part of a well functioning democracy. It happens all the time. But dissent isn't an indication of dysfunction. It's quite the opposite, dissent is the badge of democracy. You don't see dissent in fascist dictatorships like Mother Russia. Dissent is a marker of the rule of law.

It is not completely worthless. But is there really free speech in a country where you can end up life in prison for owning some pictures and can be fired by the state for using the wrong words?

So you admit now your previous claim was wrong. Well that's progress. And in what country can you end up imprisoned for life for own pictures or be fired for using "wrong" words? Mother Russia is that country. It isn't the US, unless you are talking about child pornography. And the reason for that is because children are harmed in the production of that material. It's kind of like punishing folks who trade in rhino horns or ivory.

Why should I? Of course, the constitution was worth a lot protecting some freedom of the markets. But this is also in the past, in a process of degeneration. The US is overregulated today, and this becomes only worse.

Yeah, why should you back up your assertions with evidence and reason?

Just to clarify: If it takes some hundreds of years to make a constitution worthless, it was certainly worth something. It has done a lot of good to people at that time when it was yet worth something. And it is worth something - even if much less than 100 years ago - even now. Because even now people can argue that what happens today is in contradiction with the constitution. It does not give them much, because all the Supreme Court judges are defenders of the Big State wanted by republicans as well as liberals.

No it doesn't take hundreds of years to make a constitution worthless. It only takes a few hours to a few years as evidenced by Mother Russia and the many dictatorships before it. By the way, something cannot be worthless and have value at the same time.

In democracies people can and do have different opinions. But they have learned to play nicely together and to work together. Unfortunately, that is something we don't see in Mother Russia.

This would be stupid. Because it is easy to hide a nexus. Say some CIA agent controls a source. That he is a CIA agent is hidden, the method used to control is unknown (ownership? Blackmail of the owner? Paying the owner for publishing the propaganda?) and intentionally hard to prove. But I'm supposed to accept all this as reliable until I'm able to prove such things? Sorry, I'm not interested in buying bridges you have to sell.

I prefer another method. I evaluate what they write. If a lot of very different sources writes the same lies, I expect the same lying source behind it.

In the example http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315607 I have done this. The clearly most interesting information was hidden, thus, the information was clearly misleading. This was not the only case where I have found the same misleading information in many different Western sources, but usually I do not make a documentation about this. But this was what I have found immediately after your challenge, which was, by the way, even more restricted by the condition that is has to be about the Ukraine and anti-Russian.

Evidence and reason aren't "stupid". You should be able to prove the things you allege are facts and you can't and you haven't. If you can't prove the things you have alleged as is the case, then how can anyone take your seriously? They cannot.

 

[Schmelzer]

And in what country can you end up imprisoned for life for own pictures or be fired for using "wrong" words? Mother Russia is that country. It isn't the US, unless you are talking about child pornography.

So, it is US. There are no laws in Russia which would allow lifelong imprisonment for owning pictures.

And the reason for that is because children are harmed in the production of that material. It's kind of like punishing folks who trade in rhino horns or ivory.

Except that making copies from free websites harms nobody. So, we have here an extreme example of excessiveness of penalties. Which in civilized countries like Germany is also forbidden. But Germany is not much better, one guy is there in prison for 12 years because he believes in some strange theories about history of the last century.

In democracies people can and do have different opinions. But they have learned to play nicely together and to work together. Unfortunately, that is something we don't see in Mother Russia.

You don't see it. I see it all the time in Russia.

You should be able to prove the things you allege are facts and you can't and you haven't.

Evaluations if a particular source is reliable or not is never a fact. It is a subjective assessment. And a source does not become a reliable source for me simply because I have no proof that it is unreliable. The source has to acquite reputation, by providing a lot of information which appears reliable. And they can easily loose their reputation by giving incorrect, distorted information.

This is what most people do - they do not believe blindly, they get the information, think about it, try to find more about this, and if what they find shows that the information was correct, the source obtains reliability and reputation, if not, it looses. You, instead, seem to believe blindly into a few US sources, sources which I have seen lying often enough, far too often to trust them. And I reject them as NATO propaganda sources, not because they are US owned or so, this does not matter, but because their distortions are always in favor of the political interests of US and NATO. And in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315607 it was even visible that the distortion was coordinated. And, don't forget, such a case destroys the reputation of all those caught by the same distortion. I have later found some more of them.

People who, instead of evaluating sources themself, simply believe some fixed set of sources, I'm unable to accept as reasonable people.

 

[joepistole]

So, it is US. There are no laws in Russia which would allow lifelong imprisonment for owning pictures.

Oh, are you sure about that?

And where is the evidence to support your contention such a law exists in the US? Remember? You were asked to provide evidence to support that assertion.

Except that making copies from free websites harms nobody. So, we have here an extreme example of excessiveness of penalties. Which in civilized countries like Germany is also forbidden. But Germany is not much better, one guy is there in prison for 12 years because he believes in some strange theories about history of the last century.

Hmm...well that's debatable. But as previously pointed out to you, kids were sexually abused to produce that porn. Buying it, trading it, foments sexual abuse of children. I guess I shouldn't be surprised you are actually arguing for the sexual abuse of children and for lesser penalties for those who sexually abuse children. Sexual abuse penalties vary by state. But people aren't put away for life for possessing child porn or sexual abuse of children alone.

You don't see it. I see it all the time in Russia.

Oh do you now. The last Russian dissenter I saw got a bullet in the back of his head in front of the Kremlin.

Evaluations if a particular source is reliable or not is never a fact. It is a subjective assessment. And a source does not become a reliable source for me simply because I have no proof that it is unreliable. The source has to acquite reputation, by providing a lot of information which appears reliable. And they can easily loose their reputation by giving incorrect, distorted information.

This is what most people do - they do not believe blindly, they get the information, think about it, try to find more about this, and if what they find shows that the information was correct, the source obtains reliability and reputation, if not, it looses. You, instead, seem to believe blindly into a few US sources, sources which I have seen lying often enough, far too often to trust them. And I reject them as NATO propaganda sources, not because they are US owned or so, this does not matter, but because their distortions are always in favor of the political interests of US and NATO. And in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315607 it was even visible that the distortion was coordinated. And, don't forget, such a case destroys the reputation of all those caught by the same distortion. I have later found some more of them.

People who, instead of evaluating sources themself, simply believe some fixed set of sources, I'm unable to accept as reasonable people.

Here is the bottom line, when you make claims you should be able to support them with evidence. And you cannot and you have not.

 

[Schmelzer]

About lifelong imprisonment for owning pictures.

Oh, are you sure about that?

Have you other evidence? Given the amount of laws in all modern states one can never be sure there are no such laws, but I have never heard of such a law.

And where is the evidence to support your contention such a law exists in the US? Remember? You were asked to provide evidence to support that assertion.

I don't care about what you ask. Seen an article about a case of some 900 or so years for owning pictures. Of course, the penalty for each picture is much smaller, but in countries with low culture it happens that many such penalties may be simply added, without much reduction, so that the final penalty can easily become astronomical. Civilized countries have upper bounds even for the multiple violations of a law.

Buying it, trading it, foments sexual abuse of children.

But downloading from a free source too? Something more serious does not follow from owning. Except, of course, having evil thoughts by looking at them.

Here is the bottom line, when you make claims you should be able to support them with evidence.

If I give you information about my estimate of the reliability of a source, this is nothing I should prove. You anyway have a different position, and believe everything what I name NATO propaganda, I also do not ask you for proofs that one can trust them.

 

[joepistole]

About lifelong imprisonment for owning pictures.

Have you other evidence? Given the amount of laws in all modern states one can never be sure there are no such laws, but I have never heard of such a law.

It's your claim, not mine. I repeat, where is your evidence people in the US are thrown into jail for life for simply owning pictures?

I don't care about what you ask. Seen an article about a case of some 900 or so years for owning pictures. Of course, the penalty for each picture is much smaller, but in countries with low culture it happens that many such penalties may be simply added, without much reduction, so that the final penalty can easily become astronomical. Civilized countries have upper bounds even for the multiple violations of a law.

Yeah, I know you are not interested in truth and backing up your assertions with little things like facts and reason. Where is this case?

But downloading from a free source too? Something more serious does not follow from owning. Except, of course, having evil thoughts by looking at them.

What don't you get about suborning child pornography? Apparently you don't get any of it. Apparently, Mother Russia is just fine with child pornography and child abuse. Well, child abuse and child pornography isn't fine in Western and most other countries.

If I give you information about my estimate of the reliability of a source, this is nothing I should prove. You anyway have a different position, and believe everything what I name NATO propaganda, I also do not ask you for proofs that one can trust them.

No, what you do and have done consistently is simply dismiss without any evidence all facts which disprove your beliefs and assertions. You have no evidence the facts you summarily dismiss are wrong and you have no evidence of any NATO connection. That's intellectually dishonest.