"i've said it before and i'll say it again, i do not buy the coverage of the ukraine conflict that is being pushed... so don't bother with it"

So you don't buy the coverage stated in those links I posted? Why is that? They contain the Russian narrative, so you shouldn't have a problem with them. One of them for example shows a satellite image that shows how a fighter jet shoots at a passenger plane. The only problem is that the image is fake (the plane in the image would be about 1 km long in real life, because they fucked up the scale) and Russia itself has already abandoned that narrative.

There is no obvious truth about who is behind the chemical attacks in Syria, but majority of the evidence points to Syrian government who have/had those weapons and the planes used to deliver them. Russia for example vetoed an initiative in the UN that would have allowed a proper examination of the latest chemical attack (in addition to that plane-incident mentioned above).

But all this aside, you haven't answered the main points:

How does it justify the wrongdoigns of a country if some other country has also done bad things?

and

Why do you defend dictatorships and bash democracies?

Or will you come up with something like this: "North Korea is in reality a good place to live and the people there have the ability to influence how the country is run. But South Korea on the other hand is more like a dictatorship and the people there live in a lie."

You must have it all figured out. Can I be part of your "wice club"?

9/11 was an inside job (jet fuel can't smelt steel beems). Did I get it right?   

"So you don't buy the coverage stated in those links I posted? Why is that?"

because there's evidence of the united states plotting to put a puppet leader in the ukraine as they have in iraq, in lybia, etc etc etc

meaning that just as they have allied themselves with rebel groups in those areas to overthrow the government, evidence points to them doing so with regards to this situation also

"There is no obvious truth about who is behind the chemical attacks in Syria, but majority of the evidence points to Syrian government who have/had those weapons and the planes used to deliver them."

...so you ignored the links i posted? lol

https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

even the us admits it was the rebels... wtf lol

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-22/us-now-admits-syrian-rebels-have-used-chemical-weapons

and they admit that the rebels were ISIS supporters WAKE UP!

https://www.salon.com/2016/07/11/u_s_backed_syrian_rebels_committing_war_crimes_torture_abductions_imposing_harsh_sharia_law_report/

"How does it justify the wrongdoigns of a country if some other country has also done bad things?"

it does not but to compare the us destroying like 8 countries in the past year to a single conflict between russia and ukraine (which the united states has a part in anyway ) is ridiculous lol

to even try to compare the two shows a ridiculous amount of delusion

"Why do you defend dictatorships and bash democracies?"

now you're making laugh, you probably don't even realise that democracies often evolve into dictatorships... that you present the two terms as if they are polar opposites is hilarious to me

but regardless what dictators? lybia was one of the richest countries in the region for example... are you aware of its current state?

are you aware of the current state of iraq? etc etc etc

hasn't the united states been the worst dictator of all time to these countries by killing their people and destroying their infrastructure?

do you know why they call assad a cruel dictator? because of the chemical attacks that they framed him for

with regards to saddam i already posted a link showing that the CIA colluded with him on some of the attacks he waged against his people

with regards to Qaddafi i'm quite sure that the some type of framing occured there also because anyone who is being rational can see an obvious pattern  

" North Korea is in reality a good place to live and the people there have the ability to influence how the country is run."

i don't know the history, but i wouldn't be surprised if north korea started out as a democracy

Exactly. The Gov has a place, but that space is much smaller then what it has become. Larger Gov control simply means all the more reason to try and sway it's decisions in your favor, and all the more chaos that comes out of that entire process for everyone else. A smaller Gov that has less control leads to a more natural free market, where a Country and it's people actually have to compete, and where progress is truly made. The free market isn't perfect either and has it's flaws, but the difference is the people's freedom of choice to constantly bend the market to their will, and punish it easily as well. The major media Corps after the last American election is the perfect example of this. They tried to control the message to such an extent, that the people saw through it and punished them for it. The Gov also saw change as a result, but it was more so the free market and it's tools that made this happen. If you do what Macron is thinking of trying, and you remove the free market and it's tools, it will most likely work highly in the Gov's favor. While much more unlikely, it can also backfire and completely blow up in your face. Depends on how strict the rules are and enforced, and how rebellious the French people are/can be.

Nope lies must be spread and as many people need to be hurt as possible, thats the only way amirite?  That way we can protect comedians!  Thats what really matters in the long run. More important that our rights as citizens I believe. 

The problem here is that News outlets are not supposed to be political outlets. News isn't supposed to present the ideas or arguments (at least not themselves). 

I have no idea how German politics works so maybe it is different in your country. The Trump fish thing was propaganda, by omission of important facts. The Huffington Post article was on point. People who defend themselves against domestic violence are not guilty of domestic violence regardless of gender. 

Both sides do not do it equally. At least not in the U.S. Fox News' overwhelming bias has been well documented for years. 

Your second paragraph admits that conservatives are interested in propaganda more than they are interested in real news. It basically says that liberals and conservatives will never agree on what's fair and unbiased, because conservatives don't value being fair and unbiased. 

Yes, mainstream media is capable of lying too. The odds of either Trump or Clinton winning shifted as the election came near. Anybody saying that Clinton had a 90% or higher chance of winning the day before the election was either lying, or not able to understand the data. According to various polls around the midwest both of the blue wall states that Trump took had around a 33% chance of going to Trump. He only really needed one of them to stand a good chance of winning the election. 

I never said he wasn't legitimately elected. I said he wasn't democratically elected. 

I know what the terms mean. I was just using them loosely. 

I'm not really sure what to say here. Conservatives are definitely not only interested in propaganda and I'm not sure how you read that into my post. Conservative and liberals have different values - but values are not objectively right or now. Your values are not "better" than my values and vice versa. Your argument here is that conservatives are bad - what should I argue here? You advocate for facts but are very emotional about your values and the "other" political side.

The Huffington Post article was absolutely not on point because there was no data to back up the claim that women only hit back. Same goes for campus "rape" rates and other stuff: The studies that argue 1 in 4 women get raped on campus consider it rape when both parties are equally drunk - because the woman can't give consent anymore. But the "consent" rape laws have only even been discussed for the last few years! So there is absolutely more to this than simple statistics - to define what rape is, you have to define gender relations and what is "normal" or "natural" behaviour for men and women. In the case of these feminist studies it is assumed that men always want sex while women only want it after having given consent - but is this true? It's a matter of interpretation. There is more to politics than just numbers. All numbers have to be interpreted. Both sides lie and the conservative side isn't worse here - you just have a predisposition to believe the liberal side (and its supporting studies) because you identify yourself as a liberal. A classic example of confirmation bias. And that opens Pandora's Box! How do we "objectively" weigh interpretation bias or political bias in studies? 

Same goes for your last example: The data journalistic sources you cite interpreted raw data and thus got to the conclusion that Trump had around a 30% chance of winning the election. But there is no "correct" way to interpret data and historical figures. We only call sites like fivethirtyeight clever in hindsight because they got it right (or rather: "less wrong" than other media). But what if Clinton had won the election? Then you would now be arguing that the mainstream media was right and wasn't lying / doing propaganda and I would still argue my point, just from another direction.

But maybe we should just agree to disagree. It has been a decent discussion in my opinion and I had fun arguing.