Why is Pravda America’s only watchdog?

Today's ANU story called "Don't Get Mad, Get Even" shows up in Pravda.Ru. Irony!!


It takes the former mouthpiece of Bolshevik Russia to give voice to a real American Patriot (one "Jack Duggan") who screams for Americans to act. He calls America a "Communist Country." Gosh.


Now Mr. Duggan's solution, throw out all "incumbents",is a Herculean task beyond the capabilities of modern Americans. More likely we will enjoy a more grisly solution of a post-catastrophe Amerika engulfed in the world's most hideous race war.

[Adolar]

Since we really have no viable third party alternative, throwing out all Republican incumbents for Democrats, and all Democratic incumbents for Republicans, it would merely be a change from Tweedledum to Tweedledee.


A month or so ago, I saw an estimate that 45 percent of the population under age five was black, Hispanic or Asian. Back in 1965, Chappaquiddick Ted told us that the new immigration "reform" bill would not affect the ethnic mix. Was he reallythat stupid, or deliberately plotting to wreck the country?


In any event, it looks like big problems ahead.

Howdy Adolar


Yes so amazing that Pravda.Ru has become a primary mouthpiece of American Nationalism (the real kind)! I fear USofA will fall to a Bolshevik disaster like Russia, and spend seventy years fighting it off

[Nelson3]

Not only did the ameriKan media come to resemble Pravda and Pravda then shoot way past the former in truth and accuracy, but it's now found that ameriKan news coverage of the Bush-Obama Afghan "war" is a knockoff of how the Soviet media covered the USSR's similar debacle in the 1980s.

http://freethoughtmanifesto.blogspot..._11_01_archive. html
<h3>Exposing The Guardians Of Power</h3>Take the latest Media Lens essay, "</span>Invasion - a Comparison of Soviet and Western Media Performance</span>."
Written with Nikolai Lanine, who served in the Soviet army during its
1979-89 occupation of Afghanistan, it draws on Soviet-era newspaper
archives, comparing the propaganda of that time with current western
media performance. They are revealed as almost identical.</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);"><br style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Like
the reported "success" of the US "surge" in Iraq, the Soviet equivalent
allowed "poor peasants [to work] the land peacefully." Like the
Americans and British in Iraq and Afghanistan, Soviet troops were
liberators who became peacekeepers and always acted in "self-defense."</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);"><br style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">The
BBC's Mark Urban's revelation of the "first real evidence that
President Bush's grand design of toppling a dictator and forcing a
democracy into the heart of the Middle East could work" (Newsnight, 12
April 2005) is almost word for word that of Soviet commentators
claiming benign and noble intent behind Moscow's actions in Afghanistan.</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);"><br style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">The
BBC's Paul Wood, in thrall to the 101st Airborne, reported that the
Americans "must win here if they are to leave Iraq . . . There is much
still to do." That precisely was the Soviet line.</span><str&#111;ng style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">The
tone of Media Lens's questions to journalists is so respectful that
personal honesty is never questioned. Perhaps that explains a reaction
that can be both outraged and comic.</span>.........



[/b]Edited by: Nelson3