It does not seemed to have improved your mood or your position.

A lazy answer is never appropriate. Especially a tired and overused lazy answer.

Or, you could spell out numbers beginning and ending sentences, as is the generally accepted grammatical rule (in place to avoid the exact confusion created). That is pedantic, however, so write how you want to, knowing that a space between a period and two numerals is still going to look like a decimal.

I’m guessing you didn’t read that list very closely, because the vast majority of those leaks are for the UK, the United States, Germany, Australia, Switzerland, and African countries with close ties to the West. There is one mention of a threat to release Kremlin documents in 2010, and I have yet to find if he…

If I didn’t think that you’d run out of steam by now, that would all but confirm it. If anything, it shows you really don’t have good rebuttal.

Both links are busted, but I find the argument ‘click the link’ to be the opposite of compelling. If you can’t explain it yourself, then you don’t understand enough to argue it.

Somebody’s getting testy.

Of course you can: everyone did. Everyone was desperately trying to make sense of an unprecedented moment, because surely, SURELY, the President was not launching an attack on a country with no follow-up plan. It looked decisive, it looked like the start of something, and many in CNN were just so, damned happy that…

It’s also condescending. Just so you know, since we’re apparently offering free advice to everyone.

What the hell does punctuation have to do with statistics, ‘homie’?

Frigging seriously: there is a world of crisis going on, and we get distracted by huckster style shenanigans.

You kind of crossed that river first by starting your reply with ‘paragraphs, please.’

I don’t know how well you math, but 58.8 (.8? of a person?) is not a 165. And that 165 is journalists specifically murdered, not counting the 35 killed in terrorist or crossfire incidents (which is a frankly much more realistic average for the profession), or the 50 on trial for libel against the government or other…

Your point being? There were several CNN and MSNBC commentators that were just as critical of the strikes as Zakaria was supportive. You can always find a single moment in a 24 hour news stream and find a new characterization of a network. I mean, you had Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Lord on the same program for months.

It’s a show of interviews by Julian Assange: that is the big point right there. As for Noam Chomsky, I can’t speak for why he hasn’t been on CNN/MSNBC, but I don’t see a lot of academics on those shows, either. Those that do tend to be one time interviews in very specific knowledge areas dependent on the news cycle.

Like...USA Today? Which is a non-affiliated, private news company?

There’s been a total of 165 journalists murdered in Russia since 1993. That’s an average of 7 journalists killed a year in an industry where one dying anywhere is notable throughout the community. Once the United States starts producing numbers like that, then you have a case. In the meantime, you have conjecture.…

Abby Martin left RT not too long after making this statement, and this came out the day before Liz Wahl resigned on air, making very specific accusations against RT. This actually doesn’t support the assertion you made: in fact, it highlights one of the more damaging moments for RT’s credibility (especially given this…

Okay, but what’s your point? Why are you bringing them up? Are you saying they are as bad as Alex Jones or Julian Assange? Because, brother, if you think they are in the same hemisphere as those two, I am curious to see the compass you used.

The guest lineup has nothing to do with the criticism of the show: it’s the fact that it’s a mouthpiece for Julian Assange. Here’s the thing: VoA, whether you like it or not, does not pretend to be anything other than what it is. It is an official, government funded organization designed to make the United States look…