Cuddlin' with Putin

[fskimospy]

I guess you need to read up on OPEC and learn who is the largest member state of this cartel, and how the Saudi have been manipulating the price of oil for decades.

No I definitely don't need to read up on that. I'm trying to figure out how what you said about the Saudis controlling US policy in this context makes any sense at all.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And it has also hurt the US economy. Tens of thousands have lost good paying jobs in the oil services industry.

Goes to show you how much the Saudi royal family owns the US government. They were the real drivers here.

So wait is low oil prices good or bad. I keep hearing these Republican guys (Trump included) saying we need to drill more oil?

 

[TheGardener]

No I definitely don't need to read up on that. I'm trying to figure out how what you said about the Saudis controlling US policy in this context makes any sense at all.

I suppose if you substitute the Obama administration with the Bush administration, it would be very clear to you. After all Bush was owned and in bed with Big Oil. Right?

By the way, it looks like you also missed in your extensive reading how the Saudis have contributed tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation. But no quid pro quo there either.

 

[TheGardener]

So wait is low oil prices good or bad. I keep hearing these Republican guys (Trump included) saying we need to drill more oil?

It depends on who you ask. The subject by the way is Putin.

But to your point, the Treasury Reserve which deems itself in charge of domestic and international monetary policy, believes that deflation, any deflation, is the worst boogeyman possible. So they would vote bad. Joe and Jane Q Public, who benefit from lower gasoline prices and the trickle down effect, vote good. Those people out of a job and the jobs that supported them, would vote bad, unless the US halts importation of crude and promotes oil exports. The global climate change nazi's would vote bad. Sounds like Trump is in the corner of the little guy.

 

[fskimospy]

I suppose if you substitute the Obama administration with the Bush administration, it would be very clear to you. After all Bush was owned and in bed with Big Oil. Right?

Huh? Why would big oil want lower oil prices? What you're saying makes no logical sense.

By the way, it looks like you also missed in your extensive reading how the Saudis have contributed tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation. But no quid pro quo there either.

While I'm still baffled as to what you think financial sanctions against Russia have to do with the Saudis, regardless they were put in place against Russia when John Kerry was Secretary of State, not Clinton. How could there be a quid pro quo there?

I get the distinct impression you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[TheGardener]

Huh? Why would big oil want lower oil prices? What you're saying makes no logical sense.

I think at this point you are being intentionally obtuse. My point is you believe Obama policies are good. While Bush policies are bad. Even when they are identical in supporting the Saudi/ OPEC cartel.

While I'm still baffled as to what you think financial sanctions against Russia have to do with the Saudis, regardless they were put in place against Russia when John Kerry was Secretary of State, not Clinton. How could there be a quid pro quo there?

I get the distinct impression you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I can only lead you to water. I can't make you drink.

 

[fskimospy]

I think at this point you are being intentionally obtuse. My point is you believe Obama policies are good. While Bush policies are bad. Even when they are identical in supporting the Saudi/ OPEC cartel.

Lolwut? What policies? Your posts are incoherent.

I can only lead you to water. I can't make you drink.

I think before you try and lead anyone anywhere you need to go educate yourself. This is embarrassing.

 

[ivwshane]

I suppose if you substitute the Obama administration with the Bush administration, it would be very clear to you. After all Bush was owned and in bed with Big Oil. Right?

By the way, it looks like you also missed in your extensive reading how the Saudis have contributed tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation. But no quid pro quo there either.

You are like a monkey, just flinging shit anywhere you can! Lol. When called out on your bs you simply throw out more bs.

Congrats on yet another successful buckshatting of a thread!

 

[TheGardener]

Try looking in the mirror and repeat what you just said.

I'm talking about Putin, you make it personal about me. Part of the Democrat practices you've adopted.

 

[brycejones]

And it has also hurt the US economy. Tens of thousands have lost good paying jobs in the oil services industry.

Goes to show you how much the Saudi royal family owns the US government. They were the real drivers here.

So you're ok with being a Russian stooge as long as it means a few more jobs. Got it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Are you joking? I'm not aware of any significant argument about the fact that RT is Russian state run media, and let's be honest with ourselves, Russian state media is propaganda. If they have achieved any acceptance here that speaks to how easily duped this forum is.

Call a spade a spade.

RT.com has been linked here roughly 30 times, and only once has it been called out from what I can tell (by you and later another member in the same thread, to your credit). Despite that, I can't find a whole lot where people have called Larry King a stooge for Putin up until yesterday, aside from a story back in 2013 about an RT anchor that stepped down over the network's schlepping for Russia.

What other major networks are King's two shows carried? I don't personally count Hulu as a major network, nor OraTV.

In fairness I'm quickly discovering that RT has had a lot of success apparently via the internet and through embracing guests that fall outside of the American mainstream, so it does look like a significant outlet for them. At the same time, it's hard to find statistics that reliably show the viewership of Hulu vs RT America. Some sources suggest tens of millions for the former and ten million for the latter, and apparently it's complicated in that RT America regularly licenses videos (albeit not the same thing as licensing a full program like Larry King's show). I'd like to see strong numbers that show RT is the primary source of Larry King's viewership today, as well as examples that Larry King's show is decidedly pro-Putin.

fwiw, I did find a 2013 interview with Donald Trump where King does seem to be pro-Putin, and has Trump go on his usual "America is weak, we need to be strong like Russia" thing. I found another with the Dalai Lama where he says that Putin has been leader for too long. Also finding one interview where he apparently has a pro-Putin dude on saying we should be grateful for Russia's involvement in Syria, and another interview where he apparently has someone calling Putin a "bad guy" (unfortunately ORA.tv is suddenly not streaming for me so I can't view the contents of either). I'm seeing it plausible that maybe Larry King really is a sellout, but it rubs me the wrong way when very few people appeared to care until right now when the MSM reports on it and suddenly this is a no-brainer.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It depends on who you ask. The subject by the way is Putin.

But to your point, the Treasury Reserve which deems itself in charge of domestic and international monetary policy, believes that deflation, any deflation, is the worst boogeyman possible. So they would vote bad. Joe and Jane Q Public, who benefit from lower gasoline prices and the trickle down effect, vote good. Those people out of a job and the jobs that supported them, would vote bad, unless the US halts importation of crude and promotes oil exports. The global climate change nazi's would vote bad. Sounds like Trump is in the corner of the little guy.

I'm confused your original comment seemed to imply the recent low oil price is Obama's "fault" but then you spoke like low oil price was a good thing in the past like under Bush. Which is it, we are all smart enough to know sellers like high prices. I'm talking about the ordinary person or business

 

[MongGrel]

Try looking in the mirror and repeat what you just said.

I'm talking about Putin, you make it personal about me. Part of the Democrat practices you've adopted.

Your beliefs are tied to you.

Maybe you should go look in that mirror again.

 

[ivwshane]

I know I've called out rt as an arm of Russian propaganda before.

RT.com has been linked here roughly 30 times, and only once has it been called out from what I can tell (by you and later another member in the same thread, to your credit). Despite that, I can't find a whole lot where people have called Larry King a stooge for Putin up until yesterday, aside from a story back in 2013 about an RT anchor that stepped down over the network's schlepping for Russia.



In fairness I'm quickly discovering that RT has had a lot of success apparently via the internet and through embracing guests that fall outside of the American mainstream, so it does look like a significant outlet for them. At the same time, it's hard to find statistics that reliably show the viewership of Hulu vs RT America. Some sources suggest tens of millions for the former and ten million for the latter, and apparently it's complicated in that RT America regularly licenses videos (albeit not the same thing as licensing a full program like Larry King's show). I'd like to see strong numbers that show RT is the primary source of Larry King's viewership today, as well as examples that Larry King's show is decidedly pro-Putin.

fwiw, I did find a 2013 interview with Donald Trump where King does seem to be pro-Putin, and has Trump go on his usual "America is weak, we need to be strong like Russia" thing. I found another with the Dalai Lama where he says that Putin has been leader for too long. Also finding one interview where he apparently has a pro-Putin dude on saying we should be grateful for Russia's involvement in Syria, and another interview where he apparently has someone calling Putin a "bad guy" (unfortunately ORA.tv is suddenly not streaming for me so I can't view the contents of either). I'm seeing it plausible that maybe Larry King really is a sellout, but it rubs me the wrong way when very few people appeared to care until right now when the MSM reports on it and suddenly this is a no-brainer.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I know I've called out rt as an arm of Russian propaganda before.

Hmm, apparently you did, when it was politically convenient.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...part-in-a-debate.2477827/page-6#post-38311871

You've also cited it, also when politically convenient.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...al-shootings-by-police.2459066/#post-37929826

Was there something that happened between those two dates that made you realize it was Russian propaganda?

 

[DrDoug]

Maybe the word "Russian" in the name is a small clue that you might want to pay attention to them because they might not be what they are portraying themselves as. With Putin increasing his stranglehold on Russia and Russians, they are more suspect than ever. My opinion on RT was formed long ago and on a (formerly) conservative political forum that I've been a member of for over a decade. RT is in the news more with all of the WikiLeaks/Kremlin/RT activity going on regarding our election and the candidates. RT is no BBC, not even close.

The fact that it has not been remarked on here more than it has is not relevant to the discussion. Nice try at a diversion though, I notice that seems to be your forte here but only on certain topics.

Great avatar Hamburger, it fits.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I never said RT was a reliable source. I said that Larry King having a show that licenses their content to an unreliable source does not necessarily make the primary source unreliable, and I'd like people to provide compelling evidence that Larry King is a Kremlin stooge, rather than half of Americans suddenly having this kind of immediate revelation over something they never gave a shit about before.

 

[DrDoug]

I never said RT was a reliable source. I said that Larry King having a show that licenses their content to an unreliable source does not necessarily make the primary source unreliable, and I'd like people to provide compelling evidence that Larry King is a Kremlin stooge, rather than half of Americans suddenly having this kind of immediate revelation over something they never gave a shit about before.

Larry King is only selling himself to the Kremlin, he isn't a "Kremlin stooge" (as you call it). As noted above, King is in the last years of his career and he quit being relevant a long time ago. Nobody cares to listen to him as he's old news. He's looking for sales, just like most of our media whores. It's just that Larry has decided that putting himself out in the Red Light district is his best option now.

Now he's a useful tool for them. Well, somewhat...lol

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Larry King is only selling himself to the Kremlin, he isn't a "Kremlin stooge" (as you call it). As noted above, King is in the last years of his career and he quit being relevant a long time ago. Nobody cares to listen to him as he's old news. He's looking for sales, just like most of our media whores. It's just that Larry has decided that putting himself out in the Red Light district is his best option now.

Now he's a useful tool for them. Well, somewhat...lol

OK, describe the full implications of "selling himself to the Kremlin". Do you believe he's lying when he says RT doesn't dictate the content of his show? He has lots of guests that are more fringe politically (Ron Paul, third-party presidential candidates, Wikileakers, etc), does that make all of his guests complicit in supporting Russia? Did you have an issue with fringe people appearing on Al Jazeera's American stint, on the basis that it is funded by Arabia? As you've said, "media whores" are not uncommon.

 

[DrDoug]

OK, describe the ...

No. How about you go assign homework to someone who is willing to get sucked into 'debating' you on this. I have my opinions on the matter and you have yours, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No. How about you go assign homework to someone who is willing to get sucked into 'debating' you on this. I have my opinions on the matter and you have yours, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Ha, you dishonest fella you. The only opinion you offered is one I don't disagree with. Thanks for nothing, hack.

 

[DrDoug]

Ha, you dishonest fella you. The only opinion you offered is one I don't disagree with. Thanks for nothing, hack.

Yay! You win!! Pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

 

[norseamd]

OK, describe the full implications of "selling himself to the Kremlin". Do you believe he's lying when he says RT doesn't dictate the content of his show? He has lots of guests that are more fringe politically (Ron Paul, third-party presidential candidates, Wikileakers, etc), does that make all of his guests complicit in supporting Russia? Did you have an issue with fringe people appearing on Al Jazeera's American stint, on the basis that it is funded by Arabia? As you've said, "media whores" are not uncommon.

The reality is going to basically be somewhere inbetween. He is a notable celebrity, and probably has quite a bit of sway over his show, but he is also a businessman with a long history of white-collar felonies like money laundering and fraud, and thus money talks, and he probably is more than willing to make some deals with the Russians.

 

[ivwshane]

Hmm, apparently you did, when it was politically convenient.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...part-in-a-debate.2477827/page-6#post-38311871

You've also cited it, also when politically convenient.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...al-shootings-by-police.2459066/#post-37929826

Was there something that happened between those two dates that made you realize it was Russian propaganda?

Politically convenient? That link had nothing to do with politics, it was about a local story. The editorial was irrelevant to the discussion.

Try again idiot.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Politically convenient? That link had nothing to do with politics, it was about a local story. The editorial was irrelevant to the discussion.

Try again idiot.

Sure it did, it had to do with the political discussion of police violence in America. The RT article you criticized told a story (of Clinton's emails being insecure for a few months apparently) that can also be referenced elsewhere.