Russian sanctions.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

I think their having a conversation without you.

We are all Samms puppets, he/she controls our emotions and rules the board.

You didn't catch that?

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Samm

My understanding of a "shill" is someone who is an accomplice in a scam perpetrated on others. I don't really see what they think I have to gain by posting the truth so I have to conclude that they are confused about the definition of what a "shill" actually is. Not really very surprising though.

You're either a shill or a useful idiot. As for 4-2-7, it's pretty clear where he falls.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

A person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest:

You see this site pedals a far left agenda and ideology by any means necessary.
Spreading propaganda lies and defaming others.

They are the Shills

When another view is presented they try to defame that individual as being the Shill.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I think that you haven't fully thought through application of the definition - even to the facts as you see them. You have not identified the financial interest in those whose ideology is different from yours. What you see as the facts might qualify as partisanship, or even propaganda, but in the absence of a financial motive, what you have described is not shilling.

Regards,

D-Ray

Right. I believe a "shill" in the context as Finn (Correct me if I'm wrong, Pat.) has used the term, is someone who has a stake in selling or pushing a particular item, book, or membership in a specific organization.

I don't recall my or anyone ever trying to sell or push anything, here at PC. Until certain characters appeared, apparently pushing gold and posting articles from singular sources, repeatedly.

Dave

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Samm

They have replaced our importing with many others and are actually pretty well positioned to continue without us.
For example
http://thebricspost.com/chinas-trade.../#.UxXiMbmYbIU
I also remember reading that they had cornered exports to some "corridor" and I was impressed that it amounted to over 30% of the world population but I cant find that article at the moment. Im in and out of here getting ready for my day.

Damn! China's trade is really burgeoning. No wonder Britain went to them cap in hand.

I still would not say "well position to do without us". 521 billion dollars is still
a huge chunk of their trade.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Right. I believe a "shill" in the context as Finn (Correct me if I'm wrong, Pat.) has used the term, is someone who has a stake in selling or pushing a particular item, book, or membership in a specific organization.

I don't recall my or anyone ever trying to sell or push anything, here at PC. Until certain characters appeared, apparently pushing gold and posting articles from singular sources, repeatedly.

Dave

Yep. The conspiracy theory websites that S(h)amm linked to survive only through the number of eyeballs that come to their pages. That's how they sell their ad revenue and/or advance their agendas (pro-Putin in many of the sites S(h)amm linked to, for example). They are both irrelevant and unprofitable without eyeballs and shills like S(h)amm do their best to provide these eyeballs.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Right. I believe a "shill" in the context as Finn (Correct me if I'm wrong, Pat.) has used the term, is someone who has a stake in selling or pushing a particular item, book, or membership in a specific organization.

I don't recall my or anyone ever trying to sell or push anything, here at PC. Until certain characters appeared, apparently pushing gold and posting articles from singular sources, repeatedly.

Dave

Gain does not need to be monetary in nature. (Did you get that D-Ray)

90% of the topic post originate or referenced from the Washington Post, the other 10% far left websites.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Gain does not need to be monetary in nature. (Did you get that D-Ray)

90% of the topic post originate or referenced from the Washington Post, the other 10% far left websites.

The WashPost happens to be a multi-Pulitzer prize winning outfit that will survive with or without people such as us linking to it. The conspiracy theory websites won't. The WashPost doesn't need shills to boost readership or profitability (or to make their name known to the masses.) Conspiracy theory websites do and that's why people such as S(h)amm troll around on political chat rooms. It's that simple.

[4-2-7]

If anyone utilizes any other resource to explain or reply to a topic it's deemed a lie, non creditable. By who? the shills pedaling their propaganda.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

If anyone utilizes any other resource to explain or reply to a topic it's deemed a lie, non creditable. By who? the shills pedaling their propaganda.

Take some time to dig a bit deeper into her sources. They have established links with Russia Today, 9-11 Truthers, gold peddlers, peddlers of World Government hysteria, etc. It's all there if you take a few moments to look. She even linked to Lyndon LaRouche's, for Christ's sake.

[piece-itpete]

But Lyndon's a Democrat

Pete