There I fixed it for you
Official tell putin to f*** off thread.
- Thread starter h.h.
- Start date
Nothing there proved anything about NPR because that's not where the $54 Billion as of May came from. That tidbit came from the NY Times
Four Ways to Understand the $54 Billion in U.S. Spending on Ukraine (Published 2022)
It’s the most annual assistance given by the U.S. to a country in the last decade.
As for the 1/5th vs 1/6th if that's all explained by the purple area then why didn't you state it correctly since the map you posted included the purple are of land taken back by Ukraine which you say is why it is now 1/6th. I mean you were giving examples of things you KNEW so didn't you know that when you made your post or did you just quickly scramble for an excuse after I proved you don't know what you think you know?
I’m sure it’s a cool article but there is a paywall.Nothing there proved anything about NPR because that's not where the $54 Billion as of May came from. That tidbit came from the NY Times
View attachment 18759122
Four Ways to Understand the $54 Billion in U.S. Spending on Ukraine (Published 2022)
It’s the most annual assistance given by the U.S. to a country in the last decade.www.nytimes.com
As for the 1/5th vs 1/6th if that's all explained by the purple area then why didn't you state it correctly since the map you posted included the purple are of land taken back by Ukraine which you say is why it is now 1/6th. I mean you were giving examples of things you KNEW so didn't you know that when you made your post or did you just quickly scramble for an excuse after I proved you don't know what you think you know?
Hahahah what?
It was pretty self explanatory, I don't see the need to come up with another way of pointing out that you don't know what you think you know.
That's okay the critical information is both in the graphic I posted above which is the same graphic visible before the pay wall pops up.
Hahaha yeah it was…. It was 1/5. Ukraine retook some land. Now it’s closer to 1/6.
Three Berries
Active member
The US/Israeli Deep State IS his country. he is just a pawn. What did he do before being elected???????
I see his parents got a 8M$ home to retire to in Israel.
Three Berries
Active member
I read only 30% actually goes into weapons to be used in Ukraine. Most are sold or confiscated.
If you want another views of the war look here. Not CI A inc.
ASB Military News
Official Telegram of ASB Military News
Three Berries
Active member
RT.com is CI A controlled LOL......
Three Berries
Active member
As is the NY Times....
Wrong
RT is a Russian state-controlled international news television network funded by the Russian government. It operates pay television and free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.
I can't say for sure who controls the NY Times but given how inaccurate you were on your other claim about RT, I'm going to say you're likely wrong here too. Unless of course you have proof of your claims beyond something you read on a Q website or forum.
Three Berries
Active member
it's not like the CI A has to publish a list of who they support. So I don't think other than having MSM paid and bought for media as support , you can prove anything either.
No duh, that's why I said I can't say for sure who supports the NY Times. That however doesn't mean that just because I can't prove the CIA doesn't that your claim they do is anything but fiction absent any proof.
Three Berries
Active member
And just because you can't prove/disprove what I say doesn't mean it isn't true.
Do you consider your reliable MSM sources to the be absolute proof? Personally it is what I experience or see for me, not what all the corporate wags are saying in unison.
How many MSM source have rolled back the impeachment and Russian Hoax stories? How many have given back their Pulitzer Prizes for pushing false stories?
Well as I said in my original post that started this debate the tidbit of information about the 54 Billion in US spending which I was correcting Volcana on came from the NY Times. Now NY Times is not a regular source of information for me so I can't speak authoritatively on if they rolled back the impeachment or Russian Hoax stories or if they had to give any Pulitzer Prizes they won back for pushing false stories on those topics. I do know that after those stories were awarded Trump made a lot of noise about it and tried to make them give the prizes back.
I did find this on the Pulitzer site which details the awards given that Trump wanted recalled but there was no mention of either the NY Times or The Washington Post having to give the awards back.
The Pulitzer Prizes
www.pulitzer.org
I also found several stories about how Pulitzer refused Trumps request to strip the prizes. Unfortunately all of them were behind paywalls which I know people here will just ignore because they're behind paywalls. I did however also find one from CNBC about how Pulitzer rejected Trumps demands for several reasons including two independent investigations that found that the stories stood up to scrutiny. I'll post it's not behind a paywall so I'll post it here but you'll likely disregard it because it came from CNBC
Pulitzer board rejects Trump's calls to revoke prizes for reporting on Russian election meddling
The Pulitzer board said that two investigations affirmed the prize-winning reporting on Russia's meddling in the election and its links to Trump's campaign.
www.cnbc.com
I'll also point out that while Trump tries to paint it this way the Mueller Investigation and subsequent report never cleared Trump of the claim of the Russian connection. It merely stated that they didn't find sufficient evidence to take things any further. Of course Trump ran with that as proof there was no collusion and that he was exonerated. This led to the Congressional committee investigating things to call Mueller in for clarification where he made it clear that his findings did not clear Trump but was inconclusive enough to where he decided not to take it further since you can't indict a sitting president but he also stated that once Trump was out of office there was enough there that he could later be indicted if anyone was so inclined. That bit came from Politico
Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line
‘We focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.’
www.politico.eu
I'll also point out that it's kind of funny how you question the New York Times when they report things you don't like such as Russian interference, but how you're quick to point it out when they report things you do like such as the story on Hunter Biden's laptop.
The New York Times Belatedly Admits the Emails on Hunter Biden's Abandoned Laptop Are Real and Newsworthy
Yesterday The New York Times published a story that quotes emails from a laptop that Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's…
reason.com
I would say your inconsistent stance on the accuracy of the NY Times is justification to disregard what you say about them as conveniently biased.
Three Berries
Active member
You are way behind on the facts and just spouting the same old same old. Just because YOUR news does not report it does not mean it isn't true or happened or fact.Well as I said in my original post that started this debate the tidbit of information about the 54 Billion in US spending which I was correcting Volcana on came from the NY Times. Now NY Times is not a regular source of information for me so I can't speak authoritatively on if they rolled back the impeachment or Russian Hoax stories or if they had to give any Pulitzer Prizes they won back for pushing false stories on those topics. I do know that after those stories were awarded Trump made a lot of noise about it and tried to make them give the prizes back.
I did find this on the Pulitzer site which details the awards given that Trump wanted recalled but there was no mention of either the NY Times or The Washington Post having to give the awards back.
The Pulitzer Prizes
I also found several stories about how Pulitzer refused Trumps request to strip the prizes. Unfortunately all of them were behind paywalls which I know people here will just ignore because they're behind paywalls. I did however also find one from CNBC about how Pulitzer rejected Trumps demands for several reasons including two independent investigations that found that the stories stood up to scrutiny. I'll post it's not behind a paywall so I'll post it here but you'll likely disregard it because it came from CNBC
Pulitzer board rejects Trump's calls to revoke prizes for reporting on Russian election meddling
The Pulitzer board said that two investigations affirmed the prize-winning reporting on Russia's meddling in the election and its links to Trump's campaign.
I'll also point out that while Trump tries to paint it this way the Mueller Investigation and subsequent report never cleared Trump of the claim of the Russian connection. It merely stated that they didn't find sufficient evidence to take things any further. Of course Trump ran with that as proof there was no collusion and that he was exonerated. This led to the Congressional committee investigating things to call Mueller in for clarification where he made it clear that his findings did not clear Trump but was inconclusive enough to where he decided not to take it further since you can't indict a sitting president but he also stated that once Trump was out of office there was enough there that he could later be indicted if anyone was so inclined. That bit came from Politico
Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line
‘We focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.’
I'll also point out that it's kind of funny how you question the New York Times when they report things you don't like such as Russian interference, but how you're quick to point it out when they report things you do like such as the story on Hunter Biden's laptop.
The New York Times Belatedly Admits the Emails on Hunter Biden's Abandoned Laptop Are Real and Newsworthy
Yesterday The New York Times published a story that quotes emails from a laptop that Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's…
I would say your inconsistent stance on the accuracy of the NY Times is justification to disregard what you say about them as conveniently biased.
A lot of people are going to be in trouble over the Russian Hoax, worldwide. Course some still believe in Pee tapes I suppose. So we just have to wait it out. Dark to light, all lies fall apart sooner or later.
Okay keep telling yourself whatever you have to in order to keep your delusion alive. You've been claiming many people are going to be in big trouble over the Russia Hoax for quite a while now and so far nothing. Seems like there isn't any there, there.
Oh and just because your news does report it doesn't mean it is true or happened or fact.
Why the Durham investigation ‘bombshell’ fizzled
Right-wing media representatives thought they struck gold when a so-called “bombshell” report came out of the John Durham investigation.
www.newsnationnow.com
Three outfits known to have historic long term ties to the agency are NYT, Washington Post,
and the publications of Henry Luce: Life, Fortune, and Sports Illustrated magazines.
The NYT was more than accommodating during the Iraq war, as well as with the
issue of torture.
Thom Hartmann used RT Today to broadcast his show for a number of years while
he was living in DC.
He retained sole control of the content, and never had any issues over it.
and the publications of Henry Luce: Life, Fortune, and Sports Illustrated magazines.
The NYT was more than accommodating during the Iraq war, as well as with the
issue of torture.
Thom Hartmann used RT Today to broadcast his show for a number of years while
he was living in DC.
He retained sole control of the content, and never had any issues over it.
Last edited:
