http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01 … z1ijN6nARvThe Republican presidential candidates are keeping a close eye on South Carolina even as they prepare for the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, with new polls showing the leaderboard shifting in the Palmetto State contest
Three polls Friday showed Mitt Romney reclaiming the lead from Newt Gingrich in South Carolina following the former Massachusetts governor's narrow win Tuesday in Iowa. Rick Santorum and Gingrich are now battling for second in South Carolina -- whose election results historically have been the most accurate gauge for who becomes the Republican presidential nominee.
Related Stories
Santorum: Possible Vote Count Error in Iowa Is No Big Deal
Huntsman Picks Up Boston Globe Endorsement
Related Video
Campaign Latest
Chris Stirewalt and Carl Cameron discuss the latest in New Hampshire.
Related Video
Who Poses Biggest Challenge to Romney?
GOP Candidates turn up the heat against frontrunner
"It's going to come down, as it always does, to South Carolina," Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP nominee, said Friday while on the stump with Romney in Conway, S.C. "If Mitt Romney wins here, he will be the next president of the United States."
McCain predicted Romney would win in New Hampshire, hardly a radical forecast at this point. Most polls show Romney well ahead in the state, though the race there is tightening a bit.
Although all the GOP candidates are competing in New Hampshire, even before the Iowa caucus results came in they were plotting for how to make inroads in South Carolina and prevent Romney from going three for three.
Gingrich said in an interview Friday that one of Romney's rivals "will eventually emerge as the conservative alternative and will beat Romney."
Gingrich lost an earlier lead in South Carolina but he remains competitive there despite a fourth-place finish in Iowa. A Rasmussen Reports poll out Friday showed Romney with 27 percent support in South Carolina, followed by Santorum with 24 percent and Gingrich with 18 percent. An American Research Group poll in the state showed Romney with 31 percent, and Gingrich and Santorum each with 24 percent.
A CNN/Time poll later showed Romney with 37 percent, followed by Santorum at 19 percent and Gingrich at 18 percent.
The polls reflected a steady rise for Romney and an astonishing surge for Santorum following his near-tie with Romney in Iowa -- Rasmussen had him at 1 percent in South Carolina just two months ago.
The Rasmussen poll of 750 likely GOP primary voters was taken Thursday and had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. The ARG survey of 600 likely GOP voters was taken Wednesday and Thursday and also had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. The CNN/Time poll of 485 likely primary voters was taken Wednesday and Thursday, with a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.
McCain and other Romney surrogates hammered at the candidate's rivals ahead of the New Hampshire and South Carolina contests. McCain criticized Gingrich and Santorum for supporting earmarks in Congress, telling voters, "My friends, earmarks are the gateway to corruption."
Romney's GOP rivals are likewise working overtime to cast as him to too timid and too moderate: They're urging Republicans to do themselves a favor and nominate a more conservative standard-bearer offering a sharper contrast to Obama.
"The only way Republicans lose is if we screw this up and nominate another moderate who has taken multiple positions on every major issue of our time," Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, told supporters in a fundraising appeal Friday.
Gingrich argued on ABC News that Romney can't win the nomination and said that even if he did, his performance against Obama in the general election campaign debates would be laughable.
Romney is heavily favored to win Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, so much so that he can afford to focus on South Carolina, where voters aren't due to cast primary ballots for another two weeks.
Romney kept his focus on Obama, telling his audience in Conway that the president's proposal to reduce the military and focus more on Asia was "inexcusable, unthinkable and it must be reversed."
Santorum, who pulled within a handful of votes to place just behind Romney in Iowa's caucuses, is likely to find a welcome audience among South Carolina conservatives, and so he remained in New Hampshire to try to maintain the momentum he earned from Iowa.
"Don't settle for less than America needs," Santorum asked those expected to vote in New Hampshire's first-in-the nation primary. Without saying so Thursday, he and the other candidates appeared to share a common objective -- hold down Romney's vote totals in New Hampshire, then knock him off stride in the first Southern primary.
Romney benefited handsomely from having several rivals split the vote in Iowa, where his winner's share was roughly 25 percent.
His allies were fully engaged in the tussle over which GOP candidate is the true conservative. On Friday, he showcased the endorsement of conservative leader Bay Buchanan, whose brother Pat won the New Hampshire primary in 1996. Bay Buchanan cast Romney as a "real conservative" who could get things done.
Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney super PAC that unloaded a barrage of negative TV ads on Gingrich in Iowa, planned to go after him again -- this time in print. The group announced Friday it had purchased full-page newspaper ads in New Hampshire and South Carolina tying the former House speaker to Obama.
"On issue after issue, Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama have so much in common, the right choice is to choose neither," the ad said, ticking through issues, including backing the federal bank bailout and favoring "amnesty" for illegal immigrants
Jon Huntsman, who bypassed Iowa to bet his campaign on a good finish in New Hampshire, was showing off an endorsement by The Boston Globe, Romney's hometown paper. It was the second time Massachusetts' largest newspaper had snubbed Romney ahead of the New Hampshire primary.
Also vying to emerge as Romney's chief rival were Texans Ron Paul and Rick Perry.
Perry, who finished fifth in Iowa, released a biographical ad in South Carolina that spokesman Ray Sullivan said shows his "perfect-for-South-Carolina status" as a conservative man of faith and a veteran.
Paul, who placed third in Iowa, was arriving in New Hampshire on Friday, in time to campaign and participate in a pair of weekend debates.
Rupert Murdoch hates his guts. He's been shit on in so many op-eds between the WSJ, the Post, Fox News... hard to count. They save their venom for the op-eds, they just ignore him outright, or slight him, in the normal news.FEOS wrote:
Well the story you posted explained the conspiratorial picture. And ignoring him by focusing on the three front runners...right. Because he got ignored in Iowa, right?
Last edited by Macbeth (2012-01-06 19:18:10)
And they hold a monopoly on all the right leaning news sources in America. Rupert Murdoch is the American Republican party.Spark wrote:
That's not a conspiracy in the usual sense tbf. At the risk of sounding like Dilbert, that's just Murdoch and News Corporation being, well, Murdoch and News Corporation.
Maybe he should've been taking more interviews and not brushing off so many pundits. If a Republican candidate can't survive the media, there's no chance.Jay wrote:
In most of the news articles I've read over the past month, if he's mentioned at all it's in passing along with a comment about him being unelectable.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I find the whole concept of a media conspiracy against Ron Paul a little silly, considering how many times I've heard talk show hosts say they couldn't get in contact with the guy or get him on their show.
Why would he give interviews to people that will just use it to try to discredit him? Or twist his positions? Or ask him asinine questions like 'you believe heroin should be legalized!?!?'unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Maybe he should've been taking more interviews and not brushing off so many pundits. If a Republican candidate can't survive the media, there's no chance.Jay wrote:
In most of the news articles I've read over the past month, if he's mentioned at all it's in passing along with a comment about him being unelectable.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I find the whole concept of a media conspiracy against Ron Paul a little silly, considering how many times I've heard talk show hosts say they couldn't get in contact with the guy or get him on their show.
You think that's bad?Jay wrote:
And they hold a monopoly on all the right leaning news sources in America. Rupert Murdoch is the American Republican party.Spark wrote:
That's not a conspiracy in the usual sense tbf. At the risk of sounding like Dilbert, that's just Murdoch and News Corporation being, well, Murdoch and News Corporation.
read my question and try again.FEOS wrote:
The West doesn't put people who speak out against the government in concentration camps.Shahter wrote:
what do you do with those convicted of treason in usa?
/sighFEOS wrote:
ere was a revolution AFTER the Bolshevik revolution?
the one that bolsheviks knew would happen. they knew they won't be left alone and prepared accordingly.FEOS wrote:
What imminent WW2?
hitler personally had nothing to do with stalin and co trying to establish order and mobilize the nation.FEOS wrote:
Hitler wasn't in power when the purges started, ffs.
not a spin. context.FEOS wrote:
Nice attempt at spin, though.
you have no idea what you are talking about. you read some bullshit put together with a purpose by people specifically chosen for the task. come visit, i'll introduce you to "joe russians".FEOS wrote:
Erm...what? Soviet citizens who were subjected to Soviet media, then were interviewed by Western media after the fall of the Soviet Union. Not "intelligensia" but Joe Russian. Wow.soviet citizens who were subjects to the same propaganda you have been. the fucking intelligensia who had no idea how soviet union actually operated. some sources! you want to speak to actual soviet people? i believe i can arrange that. i'm not a very good translator, but i think i'd manage. just don't mention solzhenitsyn again, k? it's utterly ridiculous.All of that was made up by not just the media but also by Soviet citizens themselves, corroborated after the fall of the Berlin Wall?
yeah, yeah. condescending tone from somebody who never actually seen anything, never heard anything and got all his info via proxies. and I am a clown. pffft.FEOS wrote:
And you say "we" have our heads in the sand...this is like a clown on fire.
let's see:FEOS wrote:
Because it's not randomjournalists are getting killed - that means what exactly? do you know how many people are getting killed in russia today? that wasn't happening in soviet union btw (during times of peace which only really came after ww2), why's nobody mentioning that?
no. because it only look at stuff from specific perspective and with clear purpose.FEOS wrote:
"the way it's being portrayed"? Why? Because it doesn't cast the motherland in a glowing light?the way it's being portrayed - yes, propaganda.
well, let me dig up my resent message to g@lt for you:FEOS wrote:
Oh, good Lord. There's nothing doctored about any of that. Provide evidence that any of it--any of it--has been doctored. I suppose your inability to do so will just be further proof of the massive Western media propaganda conspiracy, eh?your "facts" are all doctored. not exactly lies, but still manufactured. the only thing that can be told based on that is 1) russia's still way behind you in the ways of information manipulation and 2) somebody's rocking the boat.
see the above? that's me spinning your history out of context and trivializing it. looks ridiculous, right? that's because it's been cooked up by me - a russkie who's english is very poor - to illustrate a point. you know what? - the crap you throw around about soviet union, stalin and all that jazz looks exactly like that - the only difference is that your version was very well put together for you.Shahter wrote:
the free and the brave build themselves up on the bones of millions of native americans. millions were killed. millions more were displaced and died of hunger and disease. then the horrible capitalist pigs went on by shipping millions of brown people from africa to serve them as slaves. every third of those who stepped on those ship'o'death's didn't reach their destination and went as food for fishes, and those who did reach the shore were being exploited in inhuman conditions. millions died. when this shit developed further it revealed itself very unstable and prone to devastating crisis'es of both economic and ideological nature, which could only be resolved by means of world wars. tens of millions died while the free and the brave fixed their failing economy at the expense of the rest of the world.
Last edited by Shahter (2012-01-08 07:55:34)
Read my answer.Shahter wrote:
read my question and try again.FEOS wrote:
The West doesn't put people who speak out against the government in concentration camps.Shahter wrote:
what do you do with those convicted of treason in usa?
Of course I know that. You implied there was one after the Bolshevik revolution, before WW2. That's why I asked the question./sighFEOS wrote:
ere was a revolution AFTER the Bolshevik revolution?
there was one BEFORE. come on, you don't even know that and get into discussions on the matter? really? nice.
So now the Bolsheviks are soothsayers, as well? They knew some insane, Jew-hating, shoe salesman from Austria was going to take over Germany and start an intercontinental war? Really?the one that bolsheviks knew would happen. they knew they won't be left alone and prepared accordingly.FEOS wrote:
What imminent WW2?
I realize that. You implied WW2 had something to do with Stalin's decision-making in the 20s and early 30s, well before Hitler ever came to power--which is the point where one could reasonably start to link decision-making to WW2 concerns.hitler personally had nothing to do with stalin and co trying to establish order and mobilize the nation.FEOS wrote:
Hitler wasn't in power when the purges started, ffs.
No, pretty much just solid, corkscrew, spin so far.not a spin. context.FEOS wrote:
Nice attempt at spin, though.
Interviews of random Russians immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc is "bullshit put together with a purpose by people specifically chosen for the task"? Do you not realize the whole purpose of those interviews was to determine what it was really like because the West accepted that what little we knew pre-Wall falling was probably tainted in some way? The interviews covered a pretty broad swath of the population--they weren't targeted at all. Too bad the truth hurts.you have no idea what you are talking about. you read some bullshit put together with a purpose by people specifically chosen for the task. come visit, i'll introduce you to "joe russians".FEOS wrote:
Erm...what? Soviet citizens who were subjected to Soviet media, then were interviewed by Western media after the fall of the Soviet Union. Not "intelligensia" but Joe Russian. Wow.soviet citizens who were subjects to the same propaganda you have been. the fucking intelligensia who had no idea how soviet union actually operated. some sources! you want to speak to actual soviet people? i believe i can arrange that. i'm not a very good translator, but i think i'd manage. just don't mention solzhenitsyn again, k? it's utterly ridiculous.
Are you on fire?yeah, yeah. condescending tone from somebody who never actually seen anything, never heard anything and got all his info via proxies. and I am a clown. pffft.FEOS wrote:
And you say "we" have our heads in the sand...this is like a clown on fire.
And most of those are linked to the Kremlin in some way. Weird that journalists in the West can do the same type of investigations and not get killed...or when they do, the crimes don't go "unresolved" forever. Probably propaganda, though.let's see:FEOS wrote:
Because it's not randomjournalists are getting killed - that means what exactly? do you know how many people are getting killed in russia today? that wasn't happening in soviet union btw (during times of peace which only really came after ww2), why's nobody mentioning that?
killed while investigating organized crime and corruption... never happens in the west i recon?
killed while poking around chechens and other yahoos... that wouldn't have happened if that person tried to be nosy around some of the most widely known criminal ethnic groups of, say, usa, right?
btw, how many were killed while not doing any of the stuff mentioned in that article? oh, they didn't research that matter, they are only interested in reporting stuff that advances their agenda. thought so.
Yeah: reporting facts. So whacky.no. because it only look at stuff from specific perspective and with clear purpose.FEOS wrote:
"the way it's being portrayed"? Why? Because it doesn't cast the motherland in a glowing light?the way it's being portrayed - yes, propaganda.
The end of it, for one.well, let me dig up my resent message to g@lt for you:FEOS wrote:
Oh, good Lord. There's nothing doctored about any of that. Provide evidence that any of it--any of it--has been doctored. I suppose your inability to do so will just be further proof of the massive Western media propaganda conspiracy, eh?your "facts" are all doctored. not exactly lies, but still manufactured. the only thing that can be told based on that is 1) russia's still way behind you in the ways of information manipulation and 2) somebody's rocking the boat.see the above? that's me spinning your history out of context and trivializing it. looks ridiculous, right? that's because it's been cooked up by me - a russkie who's english is very poor - to illustrate a point. you know what? - the crap you throw around about soviet union, stalin and all that jazz looks exactly like that - the only difference is that your version was very well put together for you.Shahter wrote:
the free and the brave build themselves up on the bones of millions of native americans. millions were killed. millions more were displaced and died of hunger and disease. then the horrible capitalist pigs went on by shipping millions of brown people from africa to serve them as slaves. every third of those who stepped on those ship'o'death's didn't reach their destination and went as food for fishes, and those who did reach the shore were being exploited in inhuman conditions. millions died. when this shit developed further it revealed itself very unstable and prone to devastating crisis'es of both economic and ideological nature, which could only be resolved by means of world wars. tens of millions died while the free and the brave fixed their failing economy at the expense of the rest of the world.
anyway, tell me: what's not true in my "improvised summary" of your history? i suppose your inability to point anything out could be... ehm... used as proof for something, huh?
Ron Paul has to be able to defend his positions and hit back at pundits who try to twist an interview around to their own benefit. If he's afraid to face conservative media, how's he going to survive against a Democratic incumbent?Jay wrote:
Why would he give interviews to people that will just use it to try to discredit him? Or twist his positions? Or ask him asinine questions like 'you believe heroin should be legalized!?!?'unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Maybe he should've been taking more interviews and not brushing off so many pundits. If a Republican candidate can't survive the media, there's no chance.Jay wrote:
In most of the news articles I've read over the past month, if he's mentioned at all it's in passing along with a comment about him being unelectable.
That's one way to look at it.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
By the time the Republicans are done beating the snot out of each other, the winner's going to look awful compared to Obama.
Aha! Yew are admit zee Amerikanski Konspiracy! Iz all worst than Soviet sytema! Admitting you are never on moon, of course!FEOS wrote:
We (the American electorate) shouldn't expect a "free ride" for any candidate from the press. It's their job to question all sides equally. I won't hold my breath to see that actually happen, though.
it does not answer the question i asked. but then again, i know the answer. you can't - or won't - spell it out? k.FEOS wrote:
Read my answer.
no i didn't. read the fucking messages you reply to who dont' you.FEOS wrote:
Of course I know that. You implied there was one after the Bolshevik revolution/sighFEOS wrote:
ere was a revolution AFTER the Bolshevik revolution?
there was one BEFORE. come on, you don't even know that and get into discussions on the matter? really? nice.
no. they knew the nature of the world they tried to go their own way in - that's why they had to prepare for the worst. what form it would take - no, that they didn't know.FEOS wrote:
So now the Bolsheviks are soothsayers, as well?the one that bolsheviks knew would happen. they knew they won't be left alone and prepared accordingly.FEOS wrote:
What imminent WW2?
above answers this as well.FEOS wrote:
I realize that. You implied WW2 had something to do with Stalin's decision-making in the 20s and early 30s, well before Hitler ever came to power--which is the point where one could reasonably start to link decision-making to WW2 concerns.hitler personally had nothing to do with stalin and co trying to establish order and mobilize the nation.FEOS wrote:
Hitler wasn't in power when the purges started, ffs.
do you not realize that nothing is ever about determining the actual truth in the world were money and power are the only goals to be achieved? truth has a tendency of not going along with ones agenda - actually, it almost never goes along. show me somebody, who only talks about either positive or negative side of anything - and i'll show you a person, who's trying to manipulate you. now review what you and the rest of "freedom and democracy" crowd have been posting on stalin and soviets. get back to me if you wish to discuss further.FEOS wrote:
Interviews of random Russians immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc is "bullshit put together with a purpose by people specifically chosen for the task"? Do you not realize the whole purpose of those interviews was to determine what it was really like because the West accepted that what little we knew pre-Wall falling was probably tainted in some way? The interviews covered a pretty broad swath of the population--they weren't targeted at all. Too bad the truth hurts.you have no idea what you are talking about. you read some bullshit put together with a purpose by people specifically chosen for the task. come visit, i'll introduce you to "joe russians".FEOS wrote:
Erm...what? Soviet citizens who were subjected to Soviet media, then were interviewed by Western media after the fall of the Soviet Union. Not "intelligensia" but Joe Russian. Wow.
says who?FEOS wrote:
And most of those are linked to the Kremlin in some way.let's see:FEOS wrote:
Because it's not random
killed while investigating organized crime and corruption... never happens in the west i recon?
killed while poking around chechens and other yahoos... that wouldn't have happened if that person tried to be nosy around some of the most widely known criminal ethnic groups of, say, usa, right?
btw, how many were killed while not doing any of the stuff mentioned in that article? oh, they didn't research that matter, they are only interested in reporting stuff that advances their agenda. thought so.
as i said - those, who run the show in the west were and still are vastly superior to both soviets are those who came after the in russia. you manage your information manipulation a lot better - what's the point in killing somebody when you can either intimidate, buy out or discredit the shit out of him.FEOS wrote:
Weird that journalists in the West can do the same type of investigations and not get killed...or when they do, the crimes don't go "unresolved" forever. Probably propaganda, though.
yeah yeah. facts. from solzhenitsyn's books.FEOS wrote:
Yeah: reporting facts. So whacky.no. because it only look at stuff from specific perspective and with clear purpose.FEOS wrote:
"the way it's being portrayed"? Why? Because it doesn't cast the motherland in a glowing light?
if you are willing to start discussing this matter not in terms of condoning or condemning but towards understanding of what happened in soviet union - be my guest. you'll have to forget about solzhenitsyn and "joe russians" though, because i have people right here whos many opinions - based on life experience, not second hand info you get - go completely contrary to that bullshit.FEOS wrote:
The end of it, for one.well, let me dig up my resent message to g@lt for you:see the above? that's me spinning your history out of context and trivializing it. looks ridiculous, right? that's because it's been cooked up by me - a russkie who's english is very poor - to illustrate a point. you know what? - the crap you throw around about soviet union, stalin and all that jazz looks exactly like that - the only difference is that your version was very well put together for you.Shahter wrote:
the free and the brave build themselves up on the bones of millions of native americans. millions were killed. millions more were displaced and died of hunger and disease. then the horrible capitalist pigs went on by shipping millions of brown people from africa to serve them as slaves. every third of those who stepped on those ship'o'death's didn't reach their destination and went as food for fishes, and those who did reach the shore were being exploited in inhuman conditions. millions died. when this shit developed further it revealed itself very unstable and prone to devastating crisis'es of both economic and ideological nature, which could only be resolved by means of world wars. tens of millions died while the free and the brave fixed their failing economy at the expense of the rest of the world.
anyway, tell me: what's not true in my "improvised summary" of your history? i suppose your inability to point anything out could be... ehm... used as proof for something, huh?
Other than that, the basic facts are there. See, the difference between you and the rest of us is that we don't deny the warts of our history. And we don't take pages and pages here to deny and spin facts that are plain and undeniable.
If I had been like you, I would've said "The Indians never died, they lived peacefully on reservations--in fact, that's how they wanted to live...even before the white man arrived. They were just waiting for him to get here and show them the way, being savages and all. And the slaves weren't happy in Africa. Their tribal life wasn't fulfilling, so they yearned for the structure of life as unpaid laborers in the West. Yes, some died on the ship ride over, but that was normal for the time. Once they got to America, they lived a markedly better life than they would have in Africa, so it was really better for them to be slaves. And America won both World Wars singlehandedly. Everyone else was just marking time until the US got involved."
And yes, you've done essentially that with your version of SU/Russian history. And it sounds just as ridiculous.
Last edited by Shahter (2012-01-08 10:27:30)
It actually does. Think about for half a second.Shahter wrote:
it does not answer the question i asked. but then again, i know the answer. you can't - or won't - spell it out? k.FEOS wrote:
Read my answer.
Sigh. I do, Shahter. It's not my fault if that's not what you meant to imply. Call it a misunderstanding, then, OK?no i didn't. read the fucking messages you reply to who dont' you.FEOS wrote:
Of course I know that. You implied there was one after the Bolshevik revolution/sighFEOS wrote:
ere was a revolution AFTER the Bolshevik revolution?
there was one BEFORE. come on, you don't even know that and get into discussions on the matter? really? nice.
And that justified the millions of dead in your own country? Really?no. they knew the nature of the world they tried to go their own way in - that's why they had to prepare for the worst. what form it would take - no, that they didn't know.FEOS wrote:
So now the Bolsheviks are soothsayers, as well?the one that bolsheviks knew would happen. they knew they won't be left alone and prepared accordingly.FEOS wrote:
What imminent WW2?
So the purges had nothing to do with WW2, then?above answers this as well.FEOS wrote:
I realize that. You implied WW2 had something to do with Stalin's decision-making in the 20s and early 30s, well before Hitler ever came to power--which is the point where one could reasonably start to link decision-making to WW2 concerns.hitler personally had nothing to do with stalin and co trying to establish order and mobilize the nation.FEOS wrote:
Hitler wasn't in power when the purges started, ffs.
I suppose when you live in a country where the media is essentially state-controlled, you would have that viewpoint. When you have multiple sources with conflicting viewpoints and can draw your own conclusions from them, you are a little more open-minded.do you not realize that nothing is ever about determining the actual truth in the world were money and power are the only goals to be achieved? truth has a tendency of not going along with ones agenda - actually, it almost never goes along. show me somebody, who only talks about either positive or negative side of anything - and i'll show you a person, who's trying to manipulate you. now review what you and the rest of "freedom and democracy" crowd have been posting on stalin and soviets. get back to me if you wish to discuss further.FEOS wrote:
Interviews of random Russians immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc is "bullshit put together with a purpose by people specifically chosen for the task"? Do you not realize the whole purpose of those interviews was to determine what it was really like because the West accepted that what little we knew pre-Wall falling was probably tainted in some way? The interviews covered a pretty broad swath of the population--they weren't targeted at all. Too bad the truth hurts.you have no idea what you are talking about. you read some bullshit put together with a purpose by people specifically chosen for the task. come visit, i'll introduce you to "joe russians".FEOS wrote:
Erm...what? Soviet citizens who were subjected to Soviet media, then were interviewed by Western media after the fall of the Soviet Union. Not "intelligensia" but Joe Russian. Wow.
Says outside sources that investigated the killings when the Kremlin wouldn't.says who?FEOS wrote:
And most of those are linked to the Kremlin in some way.let's see:FEOS wrote:
Because it's not random
killed while investigating organized crime and corruption... never happens in the west i recon?
killed while poking around chechens and other yahoos... that wouldn't have happened if that person tried to be nosy around some of the most widely known criminal ethnic groups of, say, usa, right?
btw, how many were killed while not doing any of the stuff mentioned in that article? oh, they didn't research that matter, they are only interested in reporting stuff that advances their agenda. thought so.
Reality doesn't corroborate your position. If our media was in cahoots with our government in the way you opine, then why is it our media constantly investigates politicians and "outs" them for various misdeeds, or almost never has anything positive to say about the government, regardless of who is in power? It just seems they are slightly less negative if the group they are more aligned with is in power. Then you've got media outlets from other nations that have no allegiance whatsoever to a given nation's political mechanism...as i said - those, who run the show in the west were and still are vastly superior to both soviets are those who came after the in russia. you manage your information manipulation a lot better - what's the point in killing somebody when you can either intimidate, buy out or discredit the shit out of him.FEOS wrote:
Weird that journalists in the West can do the same type of investigations and not get killed...or when they do, the crimes don't go "unresolved" forever. Probably propaganda, though.
You do realize that someone who writes fiction for a living can also make factual statements and write non-fiction, as well? It's not like Hemingway ran around telling short stories in response to "What would you like for breakfast?"yeah yeah. facts. from solzhenitsyn's books.FEOS wrote:
Yeah: reporting facts. So whacky.no. because it only look at stuff from specific perspective and with clear purpose.FEOS wrote:
"the way it's being portrayed"? Why? Because it doesn't cast the motherland in a glowing light?
You have people living there, influenced by state-run, Kremlin-controlled media--just like you. The west has Russians who have seen Soviet days, post-Soviet days, current conditions, and Western life. You have seen all of that, with the exception of the last. And yet you, and those like you, are the only ones competent to have an opinion on the matter. Even though you lack a key piece of the perspective.if you are willing to start discussing this matter not in terms of condoning or condemning but towards understanding of what happened in soviet union - be my guest. you'll have to forget about solzhenitsyn and "joe russians" though, because i have people right here whos many opinions - based on life experience, not second hand info you get - go completely contrary to that bullshit.FEOS wrote:
The end of it, for one.well, let me dig up my resent message to g@lt for you:
see the above? that's me spinning your history out of context and trivializing it. looks ridiculous, right? that's because it's been cooked up by me - a russkie who's english is very poor - to illustrate a point. you know what? - the crap you throw around about soviet union, stalin and all that jazz looks exactly like that - the only difference is that your version was very well put together for you.
anyway, tell me: what's not true in my "improvised summary" of your history? i suppose your inability to point anything out could be... ehm... used as proof for something, huh?
Other than that, the basic facts are there. See, the difference between you and the rest of us is that we don't deny the warts of our history. And we don't take pages and pages here to deny and spin facts that are plain and undeniable.
If I had been like you, I would've said "The Indians never died, they lived peacefully on reservations--in fact, that's how they wanted to live...even before the white man arrived. They were just waiting for him to get here and show them the way, being savages and all. And the slaves weren't happy in Africa. Their tribal life wasn't fulfilling, so they yearned for the structure of life as unpaid laborers in the West. Yes, some died on the ship ride over, but that was normal for the time. Once they got to America, they lived a markedly better life than they would have in Africa, so it was really better for them to be slaves. And America won both World Wars singlehandedly. Everyone else was just marking time until the US got involved."
And yes, you've done essentially that with your version of SU/Russian history. And it sounds just as ridiculous.
A Republican candidate who is weak or is perceived as being weak with the press isn't going to stand much of a chance against a Democratic incumbent, whom we've got to assume's going to get wide support from non-conservative press.FEOS wrote:
We (the American electorate) shouldn't expect a "free ride" for any candidate from the press. It's their job to question all sides equally. I won't hold my breath to see that actually happen, though.