Tulsi Gabbard doing the Kremlin's work...

[cigaretteman]

You mean no evidence of an impeachable offense, right? You seem to be against political shams, why not all of them?

There was nothing sham whatsoever about the indisputably impeachable offenses committed by Trump and his seditious enablers during his mockery of a presidency. If you do not understand that, you are beyond hope. Had the seditionous Republican senators not violated their oaths to protect and defend the constitution by voting not to convict, he would have rightfully been removed from office.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

She was directly asked, “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”
She decided to not answer that question, but instead to talk about the labs.


So your assertion is that simply affirming the fact we fund the biological labs is ‘Russian propaganda’?
Is the DoD press release that mentions their funding ‘Russian propaganda’, or is it just ‘Russian propaganda’ to point out that press release?

Or as you assuming the labs that Nuland is worried about falling into Russian hands aren’t the ones the DoD spent millions on, but some other labs? Is that the latest spin?

I'm not going to get into a 15 page semantics discussion with you. That you don't know what some of the BTRP funded labs in Ukraine are doing is enough to dismiss you out-of-hand.

 

[seminole97]

I'm not going to get into a 15 page semantics discussion with you.

You started by calling me into this thread:

@seminole97 pushing Russian propaganda makes her a Russian asset - uniform or not. Do you disagree?

I simply asked you specifically, What’s the ‘Russian propaganda’?
Are neocons like Nuland hyping a non-existent concern?

LOL...and here we go with the "neocons" again. I don't know...were the "neocons" right about the biolabs in Iraq? Or was that the Bilderbergs? You get them confused.

I dealt with your confusion regarding the term term neocon, and again asked you, what ‘Russian propaganda’ you’re accusing Tulsi of spreading?

In response to that question, you avoided answering again and instead asked, Where are the "US funded biolabs"?

So I showed you.

So I'm asking (again) what is the 'Russian propaganda'?

Is Nuland 'parroting Russian propaganda' by mentioning these labs when Rubio asked her whether or not Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons?

 

[Chishawk1425]

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You started by calling me into this thread:

@seminole97 pushing Russian propaganda makes her a Russian asset - uniform or not. Do you disagree?

I simply asked you specifically, What’s the ‘Russian propaganda’?
Are neocons like Nuland hyping a non-existent concern?

LOL...and here we go with the "neocons" again. I don't know...were the "neocons" right about the biolabs in Iraq? Or was that the Bilderbergs? You get them confused.

I dealt with your confusion regarding the term term neocon, and again asked you, what ‘Russian propaganda’ you’re accusing Tulsi of spreading?

In response to that question, you avoided answering again and instead asked, Where are the "US funded biolabs"?

So I showed you.

So I'm asking (again) what is the 'Russian propaganda'?

Is Nuland 'parroting Russian propaganda' by mentioning these labs when Rubio asked her whether or not Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons?

I've answered that question multiple times. You're either too obtuse to get it or willfully ignorant. If you understood what some of those "US funded biolabs" in Ukraine were doing, it might make it clearer for you.

But I doubt it.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

(See: @seminole97 )

 

[seminole97]

I've answered that question multiple times.

So her ‘Russian propaganda’ is just citing the DoD fact sheet on biological labs the U.S. funds in Ukraine?
Nothing more?

Is Nuland guilty of the same ‘Russian propaganda’ when she suggests there are dangers in those labs that could escape?

 

[RileyHawk]

So her ‘Russian propaganda’ is just citing the DoD fact sheet on biological labs the U.S. funds in Ukraine?
Nothing more?

Is Nuland guilty of the same ‘Russian propaganda’ when she suggests there are dangers in those labs that could escape?

LOL - you didn't read the Forbes article. It summarizes it very well.

Always count on you to mislead.

 

[seminole97]

LOL - you didn't read the Forbes article. It summarizes it very well.

Always count on you to mislead.

Do you think Nuland was spreading ‘Russian propaganda’ when she invoked these labs in response to Rubio’s direct question about whether or not Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons?
Tarheel won’t touch this question.

And while I have your attention,
you contend the federal debt doesn’t move in a one-for-one fashion with the deficit or surplus. In your view, what besides the deficit or the surplus is changing the outstanding federal debt? You never did say.

 

[RileyHawk]

Do you think Nuland was spreading ‘Russian propaganda’ when she invoked these labs in response to Rubio’s direct question about whether or not Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons?
Tarheel won’t touch this question.

And while I have your attention,
you contend the federal debt doesn’t move in a one-for-one fashion with the deficit or surplus. In your view, what besides the deficit or the surplus is changing the outstanding federal debt? You never did say.

I think people a LOT smarter than you recognize that Tulsi is spreading Russian propaganda and you continue to defend the propaganda.

I showed you your ass several times on the deficit/surplus not necessarily impacting debt. Its high school economics of which you've demonstrated failure.

You're such a hack. But it's fun pulling your strings.

 

[seminole97]

So her ‘Russian propaganda’ is just citing the DoD fact sheet on biological labs the U.S. funds in Ukraine?
Nothing more?

Is Nuland guilty of the same ‘Russian propaganda’ when she suggests there are dangers in those labs that could escape?

@tarheelbybirth seeking clarification.

 

[seminole97]

I think people a LOT smarter than you recognize that Tulsi is spreading Russian propaganda and you continue to defend the propaganda.

Is Tulsi spreading ‘Russian propaganda’ by citing a DoD fact sheet on U.S. funding of labs in Ukraine? If so, why is the DoD producing ‘Russian propaganda’?
Is Victoria Nuland spreading ‘Russian propaganda’ by invoking the dangers at those labs when directly asked by Senator Rubio if Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons?

I showed you your ass several times on the deficit/surplus not necessarily impacting debt. Its high school economics of which you've demonstrated failure.

You asserted that the debt is increased or decreased by things other than the deficit or surplus.
That’s incorrect. Your own selected source refutes it.
But setting that aside, I’ve simply asked you, what else changes the debt?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

@tarheelbybirth seeking clarification.

I've already told you I'm not getting into an extended semantics debate with you. That you, apparently have no idea that the DoD through BTRP works with govts all over the world discredits you. That you, apparently, have no idea what the labs funded by BTRP in fomer Soviet satellites even do is even more damning.

You are a one-trick pony and it's gotten very old. Everyone knows what Gabbard is doing when she amplifies Russian propaganda...I suspect even you.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

Good on Mitt but of course he isn’t calling out any Republicans.

View embedded media

So, when he called them all morons on national TV, he wasn't "calling them out"?

 

[seminole97]

I've already told you I'm not getting into an extended semantics debate with you.

I’m not asking for one, I’m asking you why you think citing a DoD fact sheet is spreading Russian propaganda’.
What on that fact sheet is Russian propaganda?
We know the labs exist.
We know the US funded them.
Nuland says they have scary stuff in them.
What is the ‘Russian propaganda’ part?
Is Nuland misleading us about the danger?

That you, apparently have no idea that the DoD through BTRP works with govts all over the world discredits you. That you, apparently, have no idea what the labs funded by BTRP in fomer Soviet satellites even do is even more damning.

I keep ignoring this because it untrue and irrelevant to why you think citing a DoD fact sheet is ‘Russian propaganda’.
It’s part of your distraction routine.

You are a one-trick pony and it's gotten very old. Everyone knows what Gabbard is doing when she amplifies Russian propaganda...I suspect even you.

You’ve tried several transparent tricks to distract from answering my simple question:

Is Victoria Nuland ‘amplifying Russian propaganda’ when she brings up these labs in response to a direct question about whether or not Ukraine possesses chemical or biological weapons?

 

[Joes Place]

Its almost like they keep trying to find the next biggest lie... And, the beneficiary always seems to be Putin.

Tulsi Gabbard Spreads Kremlin Lies About Bioweapons​

March 13, 2022 Propaganda, Russia


Forbes reports:

Tulsi Gabbard Latest To Push Russian-Backed Conspiracy About U.S.-Backed Biological Labs In Ukraine

Known for her pro-Russia stances and frequent conspiracy theories, former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard shared misleading information Sunday about the danger of biological laboratories in Ukraine.

www.forbes.com

 

[Joes Place]

You started by calling me into this thread:

@seminole97 pushing Russian propaganda makes her a Russian asset - uniform or not. Do you disagree?

I simply asked you specifically, What’s the ‘Russian propaganda’?

Oh good lord

It's the alleged "biolabs", which is a complete red herring.
The mentions started on rightwing "news" sites (likely fed by Kremlin propaganda to them), then have been picked up by RT and others to use as false flag justification.

It's a common Kremlin technique- get the misinformation mentioned by your assets in western sources, then use them to "create" legitimate "news" in Russian spheres and let the feedback work its magic.

Whether these people realize they are Russian propaganda pawns is uncertain, but at this point, they really have to know.

 

[Joes Place]

 

[Joes Place]

You started by calling me into this thread:

@seminole97 pushing Russian propaganda makes her a Russian asset - uniform or not. Do you disagree?

I simply asked you specifically, What’s the ‘Russian propaganda’?
Are neocons like Nuland hyping a non-existent concern?

LOL...and here we go with the "neocons" again. I don't know...were the "neocons" right about the biolabs in Iraq? Or was that the Bilderbergs? You get them confused.

I dealt with your confusion regarding the term term neocon, and again asked you, what ‘Russian propaganda’ you’re accusing Tulsi of spreading?

In response to that question, you avoided answering again and instead asked, Where are the "US funded biolabs"?

So I showed you.

So I'm asking (again) what is the 'Russian propaganda'?

Is Nuland 'parroting Russian propaganda' by mentioning these labs when Rubio asked her whether or not Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons?

AGAIN: She's PERPETUATING the myths here.










And it's a pretty solid bet that the "rightwing" QAnon sources have links back to Kremlin propaganda.

 

[sober_teacher]

Man, I remember liking her a lot.

Not anymore.

I remember thinking all along she was a one-trick pony.she had some crazy stances otherwise.

and yes, she’s parroting conspiracy theories by taking something with a kernel of truth, the existence of bio labs, into directly implying that Ukraine was developing biological weapons which is what prompted Russia to invade.


none of which, as has been stated above, was ever brought up previously by Russia prior to their invasion.

 

[Joes Place]

none of which, as has been stated above, was ever brought up previously by Russia prior to their invasion.

But, again, this doesn't preclude the option that the Kremlin pushed this out to rightwing "assets" in advance to use later.

 

[your_master5]

What a bunch of liberal idiots in this thread falling for the good ole Russian disinformation bit again. When will you boneheads finally wake up to the stupid you've been buying into? JFC. Russia has their own bioweapons, they don't need anything in Ukraine to inflict this type of damage. This is all a bunch of chit.

 

[RileyHawk]

Is Tulsi spreading ‘Russian propaganda’ by citing a DoD fact sheet on U.S. funding of labs in Ukraine? If so, why is the DoD producing ‘Russian propaganda’?
Is Victoria Nuland spreading ‘Russian propaganda’ by invoking the dangers at those labs when directly asked by Senator Rubio if Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons?


You asserted that the debt is increased or decreased by things other than the deficit or surplus.
That’s incorrect. Your own selected source refutes it.
But setting that aside, I’ve simply asked you, what else changes the debt?

Yes. Increased borrowing. SMFH

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Its almost like they keep trying to find the next biggest lie... And, the beneficiary always seems to be Putin.

Tulsi Gabbard Spreads Kremlin Lies About Bioweapons​

March 13, 2022 Propaganda, Russia


Forbes reports:

Tulsi Gabbard Latest To Push Russian-Backed Conspiracy About U.S.-Backed Biological Labs In Ukraine

Known for her pro-Russia stances and frequent conspiracy theories, former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard shared misleading information Sunday about the danger of biological laboratories in Ukraine.

www.forbes.com

This is certainly disappointing for liberals here who still like her for her good stands on various important issues - from climate change to health care.

But let's not get carried away. She's NOT spreading the Russian bio-WEAPON nonsense. The media is posing it that way. But what she said was that there is US support for a bunch of bio labs. Most of us know the difference between labs and weapons.

Who knows where she's getting her info, or whether she's right? Or what is she counting as "US support"? Are we talking about federal grants to Ukraine bio-weapon facilities? That seems rather unlikely, but could be true. Or is she talking about collaboration between US businesses and Ukraine businesses? That seems perfectly plausible. It's the kind of thing that happens all over the world and is unremarkable unless there's a war.

 

[seminole97]

Yes. Increased borrowing. SMFH

Do you think the government raises debt for giggles?
The government borrows to finance spending, not just to increase borrowing.
Ergo, that spending shows up as a deficit in the period in question (that’s why it had be financed by borrowing). You’re pointing to a deficit moving the debt in the instance you’ve cited.
Are you unable to recognize this?

But you said the debt moves due to things other than the deficit or surplus (mathematically not possible, but your position nonetheless).
So what else is changing the debt?

 

[sober_teacher]

But, again, this doesn't preclude the option that the Kremlin pushed this out to rightwing "assets" in advance to use later.

Personally, I disagree that they had this out in advance prior to the invasion. Their disinformation campaigns work because they flood the airwaves with crap so people get confused. Russia got killed in the PR war when this all started because their narrative that Ukraine was somehow threatening Russia and it was blatantly false. Them having bio weapons would have helped them.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

BTW...is there an industrialized country anywhere in the world that doesn't have "biological research facilities"?

This is my point. It's perfectly reasonable to think that such facilities exist in Ukraine. And it's perfectly reasonable to worry that they might cause problems if damaged by this war.

The only real reason to criticize Tulsi is her implication that the US government funds some of those labs. Per Forbes, we deny that. But notice the wording [my emphasis]:

"The United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine,” said State Department spokesman Ned Price Thursday.​

Tulsi did not say the US owns or operates the labs. We do not own or operate the Wuhan lab that was everybody's favorite whipping boy recently. But we did fund some of its activities. Notice the difference? We are very specific about what we are denying - and what we are not denying.

 

[seminole97]

This is certainly disappointing for liberals here who still like her for her good stands on various important issues - from climate change to health care.

Why do liberals not like her opposition to war?
I get why neocons attack her. She opposes their interventions and their disastrous consequences.

But let's not get carried away. She's NOT spreading the Russian bio-WEAPON nonsense. The media is posing it that way.

So you think Tarheel and the rest have just been duped by misleading media?

But what she said was that there is US support for a bunch of bio labs. Most of us know the difference between labs and weapons.

Nuland said the labs are dangerous, and unprompted she introduced the subject in response to a question about whether or not Ukraine had chemical or biological weapons.

Do you think Nuland is fearmongering about the dangers these labs present?

Who knows where she's getting her info, or whether she's right? And what is she counting as "US support"?

Why don’t you know when she linked the DoD fact sheet in the tweet in this thread?
The initial Forbes article incorrectly states:

Gabbard’s concern about the spread of pathogens is supported by fact—the World Health Organization called for Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens this week to prevent the spread of disease if a laboratory is attacked—but there’s no evidence of the U.S. supporting biological labs in Ukraine and the U.S. has consistently denied doing so.

Shitty reporting doesn’t alter reality, and even Tarheel doesn’t dispute that the US funded labs, and yet Riley is in this thread citing the incorrect Forbes article:

LOL - you didn't read the Forbes article. It summarizes it very well.
Always count on you to mislead.

Should we ban Forbes as a source of disinformation since it is clearly confusing people like Riley?

 

[sober_teacher]

This is my point. It's perfectly reasonable to think that such facilities exist in Ukraine. And it's perfectly reasonable to worry that they might cause problems if damaged by this war.

The only real reason to criticize Tulsi is her implication that the US government funds some of those labs. Per Forbes, we deny that. But notice the wording [my emphasis]:

"The United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine,” said State Department spokesman Ned Price Thursday.​

Tulsi did not say the US owns or operates the labs. We do not own or operate the Wuhan lab that was everybody's favorite whipping boy recently. But we did fund some of its activities. Notice the difference? We are very specific about what we are denying - and what we are not denying.

To me, her implication is they’re specifically creating bio weapons in Ukraine, thus justifying the Russian invasion.

the average person doesn’t seem to appreciate that there are perfectly good reasons for bio labs to exist, lots of them in fact, and relatively few bad reasons for them.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

This is my point. It's perfectly reasonable to think that such facilities exist in Ukraine. And it's perfectly reasonable to worry that they might cause problems if damaged by this war.

The only real reason to criticize Tulsi is her implication that the US government funds some of those labs. Per Forbes, we deny that. But notice the wording [my emphasis]:

"The United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine,” said State Department spokesman Ned Price Thursday.​

Tulsi did not say the US owns or operates the labs. We do not own or operate the Wuhan lab that was everybody's favorite whipping boy recently. But we did fund some of its activities. Notice the difference? We are very specific about what we are denying - and what we are not denying.

Well, here's the thing that seminole seems to be unaware of. The BTRB program was specifically created to help former Soviet states collect and dispose of chemical and biological weapons that the USSR was working on and had stockpiled. That was the BTRB's sole original mission. It was and is extremely successful at that mission. From the DoD:

DoD’s CTR Program [part of BTRB] began its biological work with Ukraine to reduce the risk posed by the former Soviet Union’s illegal biological weapons program, which left Soviet successor states with unsecured biological materials after the fall of the USSR. DoD’s CTR program works with many partner countries to reduce the threat that pathogens could be misused, stolen or accidentally released. DoD even worked closely with Russia and within Russia in laboratories owned by Russia until 2014.

It's mission has since been expanded to deal with chemical or biological threats across the globe...hence the success in Thailand at finding the first case of Covid outside of China.

The issue is that some of those labs - in Ukraine and elsewhere - may still be destroying old Soviet material. 1) no one in their right mind is going to admit that for obvious reasons 2) they sure as hell aren't going to publicize the locations of the labs that might still be handling that kind of material.

My guess is that US officials who have their heads screwed on correctly would rather not even talk about that concerning a country that is currently being invaded by the very country that left that shit behind in the first place. I sure as hell wouldn't want them to.

Russia has already taken control of at least two Ukrainian research facilities and refuses to allow Ukrainian access. But the GOP (and it's acolytes) are currently searching high and low for talking points they can use so we have the question for Nuland that was totally immaterial and we have Gabbard spouting the same BS the Russians have been pushing for years.

"Hey! Russia! Don't go over THERE! Nothing to see at THAT 'biolab'! No need to bother with it!"

smh

 

[seminole97]

we have the question for Nuland that was totally immaterial and we have Gabbard spouting the same BS the Russians have been pushing for years.

When Nuland indicates the labs present a danger in response to the question of whether or not Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons it’s ‘totally immaterial’, but if Tulsi says the same labs are a danger, it’s ‘BS the Russians have been pushing’.

How do you maintain the requisite cognitive dissonance to write that? It’s fascinating.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

To me, her implication is they’re specifically creating bio weapons in Ukraine, thus justifying the Russian invasion.

the average person doesn’t seem to appreciate that there are perfectly good reasons for bio labs to exist, lots of them in fact, and relatively few bad reasons for them.

That's the attack on her. But her actual words don't read that way to me.

And yes, the existence of biolabs isn't axiomatically evil.

Nor, for that matter, is US support of biolabs around the world axiomatically evil.

We are scaring ourselves with this kind of coverage. Which is not to say we shouldn't be paying attention. But the focus should be on the labs, not smearing Tulsi.

 

[Chewback]

Tulsi is a piece of crap. She's like Manchin only worse.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Tulsi is a piece of crap. She's like Manchin only worse.

No Democrat is worse than Manchin. Not even close.

 

[Joes Place]

Personally, I disagree that they had this out in advance prior to the invasion.

It's literally their M.O.

 

[TJ8869]

So, when he called them all morons on national TV, he wasn't "calling them out"?

Romney has called them out, but he hasn’t done it with the same frequency and manic ferocity as Chishawk. So it doesn’t count.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

When Nuland indicates the labs present a danger in response to the question of whether or not Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons it’s ‘totally immaterial’, but if Tulsi says the same labs are a danger, it’s ‘BS the Russians have been pushing’.

How do you maintain the requisite cognitive dissonance to write that? It’s fascinating.

Who asked Nuland the question to which she was responding? Who asked Gabbard the question to which she was responding? No dissonance there.

 

[Joes Place]

To me, her implication is they’re specifically creating bio weapons in Ukraine, thus justifying the Russian invasion.

the average person doesn’t seem to appreciate that there are perfectly good reasons for bio labs to exist, lots of them in fact, and relatively few bad reasons for them.

It'd be nice if she'd iterate these points clearly in her "interviews", and push back on the use of misrepresented "facts" to sell Kremlin talking points.

That's not hard to do. But you have to actually do it.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

We are scaring ourselves with this kind of coverage. Which is not to say we shouldn't be paying attention. But the focus should be on the labs, not smearing Tulsi.

Exactly what does a "focus on the labs" accomplish? Is Gabbard suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered?

"We must take action now to prevent disaster".

Ok, Tulsi...what f'n action do you suggest? Troops? Some secret self-destruct mechanism we built into the Ukrainian labs without their knowledge? Same question for you @seminole97. What have you got?

Unless you have something specific in mind, this is just playing into Russian hands by suggesting that they have a valid reason to invade Ukriane. You want to take Nuland to task for answering a specific question, be my guest, but that doesn't let Gabbard off the hook.

Here's what she tweets, btw, but I suppose Tucker is one of your boys:

 

[FAUlty Gator]

Exactly what does a "focus on the labs" accomplish? Is Gabbard suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered?

"We must take action now to prevent disaster".

Ok, Tulsi...what f'n action do you suggest? Troops? Some secret self-destruct mechanism we built into the Ukrainian labs without their knowledge? Same question for you @seminole97. What have you got?

Unless you have something specific in mind, this is just playing into Russian hands by suggesting that they have a valid reason to invade Ukriane. You want to take Nuland to task for answering a specific question, be my guest, but that doesn't let Gabbard off the hook.

Here's what she tweets, btw, but I suppose Tucker is one of your boys:

View embedded media

Why do we even have political parties anymore? The crossover of all of the crazies makes it impossible to follow.