RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA

Gay people still face jail (and other forms of persecution) in Gaza. By your definition, you are supporting a regime which qualifies as far right.

 

Like I said, in the same way as a hard-right, BNP loving mentalcase would find the Daily Mail to be left-wing. But, just because a loonball like that claims it to be so doesn't mean that the rest of us are going to believe him.

 

Since the Daily Mail is demonstrably on the far-right, your comparison is bogus.

 

Are you grasping what I'm actually saying? I'm telling you that a far-right loonball would tell you that the Daily Mail is a left-wing newspaper because his own views are so far out of whack compared to most sensible, intelligent people.

Of course he'd find the Daily Mail to the left of his incredibly narrow and extreme view of the world, in the same way as you see a publication that is generally considered to be left wing as a hard-right publication.

 

It's a strawman argument and therefore easily dismissed.

Regarding the Guardian, I've substantiated (not fantasised hypothetical illogical nonsense) why I do not regard it as a particularly left wing source of news information since it has lent its support to calamitous Western intervention and regime changes, the suspension of civil liberties in Ireland (how liberal) and even masked its opposition to Brexit in terms of its impact on large multinational corporations.

You seem to believe that: opposition to the above is "far far left" and is "narrow" and "extreme"; or that even if it does hold some of these positions it's not nice to point them out as to do so would be "cherry picking". And anyway, everyone knows (they just do) that the Guardian is left-wing, it doesn't need to be demonstrated, it just is.

 

I prefer Russian propagada.

 

It's most definitely not a strawman argument. It's absolutely true that those on the far-right would consider a publication like the Daily Mail that the majority of us (myself included) deem to be a right-wing publication to be nothing of the sort.

With the skewed and contorted views that those on the far-right have of society they'd see the Daily Mail as a left-wing newspaper, in much the same way as you, with your far-left views, see the Guardian as a "hard-right" publication (those were your words, not mine).

The very notion that someone would actually consider the Guardian of all newspapers to be "hard right" is absolutely * bonkers.

 

It is, and you've just repeated it.

I was able to demonstrate the hard-right views of the Guardian, which incidentally, you have failed to address as well as failing to list any credible "left wing" ones to counter the points I raised other than to make some baseless assertions about what "most people think" and then to construct a straw-man to deflect.

So I'll ask again:

Do you regard a news publication which has endorsed a military interventionist policy in Libya and Syria - the effects of which are untold suffering and destitution - NATO expansionism and support for the suspension of civil liberties in Ireland as "left wing"?

Or are those little transgressions merely cherry-picking?

 

Independent is worse. I actually almost vomit at the sight or mention of that 'SJW' rag.

 

I liked it when they installed Donald Trump to power by just letting him talk, it was pure genius the tactic of not using propaganda as propaganda. No one expected that!

 

Putin khuilo

 

No surprise it stopped printing, was losing money hand over fist. Same as the Guardian, can't read an article these days without them literally begging you for money

 

All this talk of 'fake news', surely the mainstream media consensus about Trump having zero chance of winning qualifies as fake, ideologically-driven news.

 

What bullshit is that Angus?

You read and constantly post links to websites like Russia Today that are known for fabricating lies.

 

Apparently the Washington Post is backtracking on the Russian Propoganda story as it was based on sham research