Gee, where to start? Well, I guess from the beginning and doing so by assuming you actually mean what you wrote.

RM always makes good points that makes sense.

Absolute all encompassing statements like that are virtually always false, but in the spirit of the valuable ironical bromide, “never say never’, I’ll answer that with an ‘absolute’ statement of my own that I think is actually true. Nobody here, and that certainly includes RM, me, and quite obviously you,  “ALWAYS”  makes sense” Your entire comments in this instance is composed of nonsense. And, refusing to respond to an honest question when supposedly “good points” beg that obvious questions does not make sense if the spirit of honest dialogue is to be expected.

Lulus favs are Consortium News and this one, Counterpunch. Both appear or do an excellent imitation of Russian intelligence assets.

As I already said, your entire comment is nonsense and the above is part of that nonsense. I think that  will become evident but that is not to say that you will agree. I’m not THAT nonsensical myself.

identify which if you choose to bicker over the point. There are many article critical of the MSN about Russia but [virtually] demonstrate the good sense to offer caveats about Russia’s failings too. Some go into depth about Russia’s failings but are for instance, to make a point about what the author thinks is a bad response by our government. Those are called “opinion pieces”.   

Counterpunch was a source used by many who discounted, like Lulu did, Russian involvement in the shootdown of MH 17. The Dutch investigation (most victims were Dutch) was discounted as anti-Russian hysteria and propaganda as part of that effort to deflect blame.

Authors given space at Couterpunch questioned the rush to judgment, questioned why the U.S. government would not release evidence such as radar mapping which surely existed, and asked many

As I pointed out to Lulu before, Consortium has never had (1) an article that was critical of Putin or Russia, and (2) never declared that the US government has ever told the truth.

That is totally false and easily provable but rather than examples of proof I’ll just point out the obvious. To know that what you asserted you would have had to have read everything posted there by its many contributors. Many among those contributors are also published at many other reputable sites. You either havent or didn’t comprehend what you read or else you are deliberately prevaricating. You can more legitimate questions. Asking questions of the government and being sceptical of the answers is, I maintain, the job of journalism. I never made any statement that absolutely absolved Russia. I did question some of the reputed evidence and I still do. I saw questions aske that I think should have been asked by the NYT, for example but weren’t. I also saw some articles which I would not give any credence to and so I didn’t post them.

Counterpunch and Consortium News are pro-Russia propaganda sites. CP pro-Russian disinformation articles on MH 17.

Again, in OTHER words, bull shit. Your charge slanders many contributors there who have long standing strong credentials. If one makes judgments following your method, dagblog never has anything of value to offer, including anything by you, and should be ridiculed, because it lets me publish there.  

I haven't read these article you offer as evidence but just skimmed a bit to see if I recognized them. I don’t. I’ll just comment on what you cherry picked from them.

CP MH 17 (1) -The Ukrainian rebels handed over the black boxes to international authorities. The investigation can begin. It hopefully will begin, unobstructed by political maneuvering.                                  

Will the Empire allow the investigation to follow its course? The Western propaganda machine is in full gear. The twisting of facts, obscuring of evidence, and maneuvering public opinion all over the world: all this is being done with determination and routinely applied precision.

Is hoping that important news is not obstructed by political maneuvering somehow wrong? The second paragraph may be an overstatement or maybe not. Intelligent people often disagree depending on the the story they hear. Obviously, you do too.

(2) - Although the precise circumstances were at that point unknown the western media were quick to blame Ukrainian “rebels”.  The means by which MH17 was destroyed, the media alleged, was a surface to air BUK missile supplied to the “rebels” by Russia.  For a host of reasons it was almost certainly not a BUK missile that caused the crash.

The underlined part is indisputably  true.

CP MH 17 (3) - there was never any hint from the BBC that the Malaysian MH17 civilian aircraft downed over Eastern Ukraine could possibly have been shot down by any agency other than Russia’s. And now, as indications emerge that MH17 may in fact have been shot down by Ukrainian SU25s, the story has vanished from the news altogether. by NCD on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 6:01pm

The underlined part may well be true, maybe not. There was certainly little consideration by any MSM site I read at the time of alternate possibilities. But again, these are your cherry picked examples attempting to discredit EVERYTHING published at CP.

Those three are all posts you cherry picked from CP, two from 2014 and one from 2015, none of which, I am quite sure, I ever posted here or anywhere else though I did bring some others here which you immediately rejected while what was known and could be considered factual was still in flux. As in all breaking news my understanding and opinions and beliefs evolve as the story is investigated and reported. Like many/most big internationally explosive events which become argued between major governments, I don’t believe we are privy to the whole truth if depending solely on our government’s  press releases. If you  unquestionably accept everything our government tells you, that’s fine, but if I ever did, if I ever had after about fifteen years old,  I would be embarrassed to admit it.

at all but just slammed it along with everything ever posted there and did so quite sloppily. If you were a journalist it could fairly be called unethically.

I’m leaving this half composed and sloppy and unedited because I’m tired and bored and wondering why I bothered this much.

CounterPunch calls itself a magazine that covers politics in a manner it describes as "muckraking with a radical attitude"

Today CP has 45 articles on offer. I presented one for consideration.  You apparently did not consider it . It has been described as left-wing by both supporters and detractors.

You did prompt to look around a bit to see what others with some standing think of CP. Opinions vary of course but not all of them are bad.   I saw value there that I considered self-evident but I’m actually surprised at how much support for that opinion is available.

Adrian Chen is a staff writer at The New Yorker. He called CounterPunch a "respected left-leaning" publication following accusations that CounterPunch promoted a pro-Russian agenda. So, add The New Yorker to your list of publications to be avoided because they spew Russian agitprop.

Here is an opinion from The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/23/in-praise-of-the-cockburns

Scratch Harpers and advise everybody else to do so too.

Counterpunch drew in contributions from people of a variety of viewpoints, including but not limited to: Robert Fisk, Edward Said, Tim Wise, Ralph Nader, John Pilger, Tariq Ali, Uri Avnery, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Gail Dines, Diana Johnstone, Noel Ignatiev, Saul Landau, Vijay Prashad, Cynthia McKinney, Doug Henwood, Israel Shamir, Jonathan Cook, and even Fidel Castro. Importantly the site has never sought to avoid taking on writing from writers of right-wing, libertarian, and populist perspectives. Key examples are Paul Craig Roberts, Dean Baker, and William Lind.[r

Andrew Cockbur, a prolific contributor to CP  apart from his books has written for National Geographic, Los Angeles Times, The London Review of Books, Smithsonian, Vanity Fair, Harper's Magazine, CounterPunch, Condé Nast Traveler, New York Times, and the Dungarvan Observer. He is currently Washington Editor of Harper's Magazine.

All those publications and many more writers are irredeemably tarred I suppose.

Apologies again for the sloppy composition but like I think I said somewhere above I'm tired but more just bored.

I asked you once after you made a similar response to something I posted for any publication you recommended that could be counted on for accurate and thorough reporting and thoughtful opinion that was always above criticism. You didn’t respond. I'd still like to hear of of some.