Hacked Emails Reveal Russian Astroturfing Program

Nooo. Really? by ackthpt · 2012-02-09 09:47 · Score: 4, Funny

All those action hero images of Putin weren't real?

My faith in mankind is ruined.

In Soviet Russia internet trolls YOU!

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Nooo. Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 09:53 · Score: 1

So... hacked Russian emails reveal politics are happening in Russia? Is that all this article's about?
Re:Nooo. Really? by ackthpt · 2012-02-09 09:57 · Score: 1

So... hacked Russian emails reveal politics are happening in Russia? Is that all this article's about?
It's more like the old days of the Cagey Bee, but with less of the Siberian Travel In Your Near Future found in fortune cookie.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Nooo. Really? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-02-09 10:03 · Score: 1

Just like the "US Cybercommand".
http://burka.blogspot.com/bushcodpiece1.jpg

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Nooo. Really? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-09 11:58 · Score: 3, Informative

The point is that anti-opposition campaign in Russia has made a lot of claims that opposition demonstrations and online activity is all paid (the usual claim is that US Department of State is footing the bill), whereas the expression of admiration for the glorious leader is completely genuine.
Re:Nooo. Really? by rtb61 · 2012-02-09 14:34 · Score: 1

Just like every individual, group, organisation, corporation or government that ever goes to a Public Relations agency (correct abbreviation B$ 'lies for profit').
Problem is they are always outnumbered. To win they have to buy off so many people it becomes pointless. Of course they are always looking at ways of cheating and introducing automation into the system, to make one person seem like thousands on the internet but the internet simply tightens up new enrolment methods to ensure real people and those sites that fail die.
I dare say the people at slashdot could write a book about methods used by PR(B$) trolls and keeping them out of the system, including commenting for, against and just off topic flooding, moderating, meta-moderating and, story submission. Often it seems like slashdot is a test bed for PR(B$) trolls before those methods are deployed every where.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Nooo. Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 15:50 · Score: 0

Of course they are. He's the toughest retarded snaggle toothed dwarf around. He can punch out anybodies knees.
Re:Nooo. Really? by havana9 · 2012-02-09 19:23 · Score: 1

So we've found the people that posted a lot of pics on Vladurday? http://news.icanhascheezburger.com/tag/vladurday/
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 01:28 · Score: 1

Rather, a lot of people at each side make claims that their opponents are being paid for their activities. That in fact signifies only the deterioration of the quality of political discussions, and the propaganda mode prevailing over the thinking mode. Of course, no sane people (outside of the North Korea) "express admiration for the glorious leader". It's a hyperbole.
Re:Nooo. Really? by tehcyder · 2012-02-10 01:52 · Score: 1

The point is that anti-opposition campaign in Russia has made a lot of claims that opposition demonstrations and online activity is all paid (the usual claim is that US Department of State is footing the bill), whereas the expression of admiration for the glorious leader is completely genuine.
So it's exactly like slashdot, where the various fanboys accuse anyone who praises Microsoft, Apple or Gogle as a paid shill? Except that in slashdot's case there is never any actual evidence of payment.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Nooo. Really? by tehcyder · 2012-02-10 01:58 · Score: 1

Of course, no sane people (outside of the North Korea) "express admiration for the glorious leader".
Why not? Britain during WW2 genuinely did for Churchill.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 02:46 · Score: 1

Why not? Britain during WW2 genuinely did for Churchill.
I see your point. We live in the time which is perceived to be immeasurably more cynical, whereas the 1940s tend to be romanticized. Like, those were the ugly times, but we used to have heroes. Yet, we can't know if that's the truth or just our perceptions.
Re:Nooo. Really? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-10 04:58 · Score: 1

Of course, no sane people (outside of the North Korea) "express admiration for the glorious leader". It's a hyperbole.
Did you see the videos from the Feb 4 gathering?
Heck, half of government propaganda this day is basically "common folk" telling just how awesome they live, and thanking Putin personally for that. It's literally down to the same level as that old joke about summer having come, and how we should be thankful to CPSU for that.
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 05:21 · Score: 1

Did you see the videos from the Feb 4 gathering?
Heck, half of government propaganda this day is basically "common folk" telling just how awesome they live, and thanking Putin personally for that. It's literally down to the same level as that old joke about summer having come, and how we should be thankful to CPSU for that.
Which of the two gatherings?
I don't specially like either of the sides. Indeed, on the one side we have "the winter is gone, the summer has come, thanks ot the Party for that". But in the same time, on the other side we have "we'll destroy all the world of violence up to its basement and after that..." without announcing the plans of what will come after that.
Essentially, it's a battle of stability vs. chaos. But don't forget that in the real life there's no stability and no chaos in their pure forms.
Both of the sides need to seek for a compromise. If they come to terms with each other, it will be a win-win situation. If they do not, the lose-lose.
Re:Nooo. Really? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-10 06:24 · Score: 1

So far as I can see, the opposition side right now primarily demands free and fair presidential elections in March. I don't see how one can reasonably compromise about that.
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 06:38 · Score: 1

There's a saying "It does not matter how people vote, but what matters is who counts the votes." If you flip the coin over, you'll get "It doesn't matter how do you count the votes, what matters is who decides if the vote was free and fair". Like any movement, this movement has political leaders who will harvest the political crops when the situation is ripe.
Re:Nooo. Really? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-10 06:44 · Score: 1

There are pretty specific demands for what constitutes free and fair voting outlined by the opposition. Do you disagree with them specifically?
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 06:47 · Score: 1

Please, let me have a look. So far I have not seen them.
Re:Nooo. Really? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-10 07:01 · Score: 1

The specific demands (pertaining to elections) to date have been:
1. Acknowledge the results of the parliamentary elections as invalid due to widespread documented fraud, and schedule new elections.
2. Detailed investigation of all frauds reported to date. In particular, Churov, as the head of the central electoral commission openly denying documented instances of fraud, should be fired and investigated for his role in them.
3. The reform of the electoral system with respect to party and candidate registration, such that it enables smaller parties to register without undue burden, and does not provide easy ways to administratively block candidates from standing for elections (e.g. by blatantly refusing to accept signatures in support at the point where any re-collection or investigation would take too long to complete in time for election).
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 07:15 · Score: 1

Thank you!
I disagree with the point 1. I voted for the commies, I believe my vote was counted, and I think the issue is over. That's my opinion, that is.
I partially agree with the point 2 (investigation is a good idea).
Point 3 is seemingly going to be done by the authorities either way.
Re:Nooo. Really? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-10 07:27 · Score: 1

With respect to #1, do you think there's not sufficient evidence to indicate that fraud was widespread enough that it significantly skewed the result of elections? I'm not disputing that United Russia would still have the plurality of votes, but as it is they have more than half of all seats in the parliament, which lets them ignore other parties altogether for all issues except for constitutional amendments, and single-handedly pass laws. This wouldn't be the case if they had, say, 10% less votes than what was officially reported. I think that makes for a very big difference.
With respect to #3, the point is that all promised reforms (and we'll see what they will actually end up looking like!) are going to apply to the next electoral period only, not to this one. Many argue - and I agree with them - that the present system is inherently unfair, and hence so are the upcoming elections in March. You can't have fair elections when candidates can be disqualified on the whim, and it's used to cherry pick who is allowed to get through, and who isn't.
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 07:38 · Score: 1

Hey, I'm a Russian like you. Don't you think I haven't already debated the point (1) times and again in the month following the election? Estimations from the public opinion polls preceding and following the election allow to suggest that the vote count was overall fair. However, most certainly there were isolated cases of fraud.
(3) For Russia, +- 6 years will not make a difference. As for me personally, I don't care that much.
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 07:46 · Score: 1

That is, in my view, the actual fraud is the story about the fraud.
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 07:57 · Score: 1

I am not sure if you are going to believe it, but at the following address they used to have the voting preferences for November and December 2011: http://www.russiavotes.org/duma/duma_vote_2011.php I checked it in December 2011, and they had the results for the November. Some time after that, I remember seeing the results for the December 2011. Now, however, they show only the results up to August 2011.
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 08:06 · Score: 1

Ok, here you can see the Novermber 2011 ratings:
http://www.levada.ru/25-11-2011/noyabrskie-reitingi-odobreniya-i-doveriya-reitingi-partii
The Levada Center is independent. Here you can see a shot of its early history, as a breakaway from the VTSIOM: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1001/p07s02-woeu.html
Re:Nooo. Really? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-10 09:43 · Score: 1

I can believe it, but it's not immediately translatable to voting results. Note how it has a very large "don't know" and "haven't decided if I vote" categories, at 17% and 9% in August. I'd expect this to be even larger closer to the elections as the opposition ramped up its campaign of "vote for any party against UR". Some of those people wouldn't vote, of course, but some would come in and vote, and I'd expect that considerably more would vote for "anyone else but" - i.e. usually commies in practice.
Oh, and it gives 34% to UR. So likely around 40% provided that some of those "don't know" people have added their votes there. Which is pretty much what I was expecting, but not the 49.5% that we actually have.
Re:Nooo. Really? by FilatovEV · 2012-02-10 10:07 · Score: 1

Now we could discuss possible interpretations of the data. For example, "anyone else but" is a meme hardly known outside the blogosphere, etc.
Below I have provided the link to the November Levada press release: http://www.levada.ru/25-11-2011/noyabrskie-reitingi-odobreniya-i-doveriya-reitingi-partii You can see the section "party ratings" there.
Oh. And, also, very interesting. There's a December press release (after the election), in which people were asked who did they vote for: http://www.levada.ru/22-12-2011/dekabrskie-reitingi-odobreniya-i-doveriya

In Soviet Russia... by Tim+the+Gecko · 2012-02-09 09:47 · Score: 4, Funny

... bonchski is astroturfed by YOU!

Re:In Soviet Russia... by ackthpt · 2012-02-09 09:55 · Score: 1

Internet troll running pro-Kremlin group, seeking to buy flattering coverage of Vladimir Putin, by hatching plans to discredit opposition activists and media, according to private emails allegedly hacked by a group calling itself the Russian arm of Anonymous operates program similar to long-time Chinese, which some commentators have suggested that a similar program exists in Russia, confirms for the first time YOU!

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:In Soviet Russia... by flyingsquid · 2012-02-09 10:17 · Score: 5, Funny

I'd just like to point out that since this activity is taking place in Russia, technically the correct term is not "astroturfing", it should be "cosmoturfing"
Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 10:58 · Score: 0

Actually, given his love of Apple products, Bonchski is probably astroturfed by everybody in your iPhone address book.
http://kottke.org/12/02/more-on-iphone-address-book-privacy

It's not really a secret, per se, but there's a quiet understanding among many iOS app developers that it is acceptable to send a user's entire address book, without their permission, to remote servers and then store it for future reference. It's common practice, and many companies likely have your address book stored in their database
Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 12:38 · Score: 1

I'd just like to point out that since this activity is taking place in Russia, technically the correct term is not "astroturfing", it should be "cosmoturfing"

It's confidante, you insensitive-- Oh, wait. Never mind.

The horror! by 0123456 · 2012-02-09 09:49 · Score: 4, Funny

I am disgusted to discover that a politician would hire people to say nice things about them and bad things about their opponents. This must stop at once.

Re:The horror! by bonch · 2012-02-09 09:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

What's changed is that the pervasiveness of social media and the anonymity of the internet makes it so that waging an astroturfing PR campaign can be both harder to detect and much more effective. Basically, you should take everything and everyone online with a grain of salt (including me!).
Re:The horror! by ackthpt · 2012-02-09 10:01 · Score: 2

I am disgusted to discover that a politician would hire people to say nice things about them and bad things about their opponents. This must stop at once.
Things in Russia are more like they are now than they have ever been before.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:The horror! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 10:20 · Score: 1

I am disgusted to discover that a politician would hire people to say nice things about them and bad things about their opponents. This must stop at once.
Damned right it must stop. IBM has a patent on the process.
Re:The horror! by Dogtanian · 2012-02-09 10:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Basically, you should take everything and everyone online with a grain of salt (including me!).
I bet the Salt Manufacturer's Association paid you to say that...

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:The horror! by Max_W · 2012-02-09 10:44 · Score: 1

Really nice joke.
Re:The horror! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-02-09 11:12 · Score: 1

Basically, you should take everything and everyone online with a grain of salt (including me!).
I see...and a grain of salt including you is a pretty large one, did I get it right?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:The horror! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 11:27 · Score: 0

Basically, you should take everything and everyone online with a grain of salt (including me!).
I bet the Salt Manufacturer's Association paid you to say that...
Nah, they just made an implied threat. Much cheaper that way.
Re:The horror! by Spykk · 2012-02-09 11:42 · Score: 1

I have my doubts about just how effective astroturfing on slashdot is. When I see someone consistantly attacking the same organization for reasons that are often tangentially related to the story I have to assume they have some kind of agenda. Why would I value that person's opinions?
Re:The horror! by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-09 12:05 · Score: 1

I am disgusted to discover that a politician would hire people to say nice things about them and bad things about their opponents. This must stop at once.
It's not that which is the problem. It's that Putin, UR and people backing them claim "widespread popular support" as a justification for why they needn't bother dealing with the opposition at all. Some go further and claim that it even gives them legitimacy to crack down on the protests.
If there's good evidence that said "popular support" is not genuine but just an expensive fake, it strongly undermines the legitimacy of the current government and their recent actions.
Re:The horror! by smash · 2012-02-09 12:51 · Score: 1

Except for fox news. They're america's most fair and balanced news source.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:The horror! by radarradar · 2012-02-09 15:00 · Score: 1

Exactly the same thing happens here. For example, while current Wisc. gov. Scott Walker was Milwaukee County Executive, his staff was busy writing posts on local newspaper sites, writing letters to the editor, etc., all in preparation for his run for higher office. Now playing in a federal investigation near me! The Walker people were incompetent enough to get caught, but who could doubt that this goes on every minute of every day here in nuestra Estados Unidos.
Putin is a putz, but America should put its own house in order.
Re:The horror! by Nephrite · 2012-02-09 23:16 · Score: 1

It is a good thing, really. Russian government shifts from killing, imprisoning and torturing its opponents to just dirty internet posts. There is a progress here.
Re:The horror! by tehcyder · 2012-02-10 02:04 · Score: 1

Basically, you should take everything and everyone online with a grain of salt (including me!).
You should take everything and everyone anywhere with a grain of salt.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:The horror! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 09:54 · Score: 0

You may be salty sir but I'm not ready to try eating you.

now if only by superwiz · 2012-02-09 09:50 · Score: 0

Someone got hold of the emails which actually connected Russia and China to the AGW proponents, the circle would be complete. But, in general, I am anything but surprised.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

Re:now if only by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 10:28 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, for language reasons, those emails are written entirely in Esperanto. On the good side, the people on both ends attempting to translate to/from Esperanto don't know it either, so their grand conspiracy plans all ended up very badly misaligned. AGW proponents tried to say something about turning off Russia's coal plants as a show of devotion to the cause, and the Russian translater read that as a request that they develop an intercontinental ballistic snowball.
Re:now if only by superwiz · 2012-02-09 10:53 · Score: 1

Are familiar with the old Russian word "sabotage"? I would mention something about Chekhov impersonation here, but you might misunderstand and think that I am talking about one of your great authors.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:now if only by SplashMyBandit · 2012-02-09 13:50 · Score: 4, Informative

Lol. "Sabotage" comes from French, not Russian.
A "sabot" is a shoe (in French), and the association comes from when Dutch workers would place their shows in machinery that was threatening to replace them (eg. these were the French-speaking equivalent of the English Luddites). Hence, "Sabot-age". The Russians have many cool words, but sabotage does not originate with them, Comrade Slashdotter.
Re:now if only by superwiz · 2012-02-10 03:10 · Score: 1

Chekhov, a Russian character on a US-made science fiction TV show "Star Trek", was prone to mis-attribute all of Earths' accomplishments to Russia. This was the joke to which my comment alluded. And not getting this very popular Star Trek reference is just the kind of shibboleth that would betray a foreign-hired troll.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:now if only by SplashMyBandit · 2012-02-11 06:52 · Score: 1

Lol. If by "foreign" you mean "not from the US" then you have found me out. I is guilty. I forget that many from the US think that the Intertubes are purely a US phenomenon. And anyway, the joke would have been better if it had been made in the original Klingon (just like Shakespeare).
Re:now if only by SplashMyBandit · 2012-02-11 06:54 · Score: 1

Oh, and for us darn foreigners, if we are not thinking about it too hard then the unqualified "Chekhov" means this dude - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chekhov - not the fictional Pavel Chekhov (although we know and like the Star Trek character).

Darn it. by lxs · 2012-02-09 09:50 · Score: 1

I read that as "astrosurfing program" and it sounded a lot better than a couple of hired goons shilling for Uncle Vlad. Oh well...

Re:Darn it. by ackthpt · 2012-02-09 10:03 · Score: 1, Funny

I read that as "astrosurfing program" and it sounded a lot better than a couple of hired goons shilling for Uncle Vlad. Oh well...
The word on the street is that you abuse houseplants and extort cheese from small rodents.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Lie! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 09:54 · Score: 1

This lie! No such program exist. Subversive Western propaganda! Everyone love dear leader Putin. Da, comrades?

Re:Lie! by Grishnakh · 2012-02-09 10:29 · Score: 1

Yes, just like everyone here in America loves dear leader Obama.
Re:Lie! by wierd_w · 2012-02-09 10:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

Am I the only one who gigglesnorted after reading this?
I don't want to sound trollish, but obama was practically heralded as the chosen one, and anyone who spoke out against him was reflexively labeled a racisist biggot.....
So, now its perfectly possible to say he's a douche who shouldn't have been elected, and not be called a racisist fuck?
When did that happen? I'm honestly curious.......
Re:Lie! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 10:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Of course he should have been elected, at least once he made it past the primary. We're pretty much stuck electing Democrats until the Republicans marginalize the ignorant religious conservatives who have taken over their party. Being racist, superstitious, and still believing in trickle-down economics at this late date completely disqualifies them for office.
Re:Lie! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 11:02 · Score: 0

Am I the only one who gigglesnorted after reading this?
I don't want to sound trollish, but obama was practically heralded as the chosen one, and anyone who spoke out against him was reflexively labeled a racisist biggot.....
So, now its perfectly possible to say he's a douche who shouldn't have been elected, and not be called a racisist fuck?
When did that happen? I'm honestly curious.......
But then (2008), as now, consider the alternative -- back then it was McCain and everyone's favorite moron. Now it's the Obama vs. The Three Stooges. I'll give you one guess who Curly is....
Re:Lie! by Grishnakh · 2012-02-09 11:15 · Score: 1, Flamebait

No, he never should have been elected. All the stuff that was levied against him back then, that he was inexperienced, had no real voting record ("present!"), that his connections were shady, were all true and smart voters should have picked someone else. There was a whole field of better Democrats running in the 2008 primaries, and every single one of them was better than Obama, but the stupid Democrat voters managed to pick the absolute worst choice of them all. Even Hillary would have been better, and she would have been a corporate whore too, but at least she would have made some kind of attempt at pleasing the Democratic voters. Kucinich would have been the best choice IMO. He actually has a real record of pushing for change and standing up for the voters over corporations and thugs; he was almost assassinated for it while he was mayor of Cleveland and didn't go along with the conspiracy to privatize the power company there.
Instead, the voters picked someone who is even worse than Bush, is even more Republican/fascist/corrupt in his policies than Bush, and what's really shameful is around half of them are so stupid they've completely changed their political positions and turned into fascists themselves so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they made a stupid choice, and they defend him at every opportunity.
As for being "stuck electing Democrats", the problem here is that occasionally, a different Democrat does pop up who shows some promise, but the stupid Democrat voters instead vote for or support a Republican who calls himself a Democrat (like Obama). Why aren't the Dem voters talking about the primaries, for instance? They're perfectly capable of throwing Obama out and electing someone else. There's some guy named Darcy running against him; I haven't looked into him closely but on the face of it he sure looks a lot better than Obama, and actually has some real credentials about pursuing Democrat-friendly policies, but no one ever talks about him, neither in the media (no surprise) or on message boards; instead it's always "toe the party line! we must support Obama at all costs! it doesn't matter what Obama's policies and actions are, we must support him!" The whole thing is disgusting, and simply makes me despise my countrymen.
Re:Lie! by wierd_w · 2012-02-09 11:19 · Score: 0

McCain and salmon breath were disqualified on grounds of being clearly chaotic evil, and stupid, respectively.
Obama was just a charismatic lair with a hollywood-bright, bleached-white smile, selling obvious lies that everyone seemed eager to lap up, because "OMG! He's black!"
Political office should never be a popularity contest, or a "Mr.America" pagent. His skincolor mattered as much then as it does now. That is to say, it matters to fuck all nothing.
The problem was that people who said "he's clearly a lieing douche, because the numbers on his promises just don't fucking add up!" Were derided as being "clearly racist".
Personally? Right now i'd rather vote for kodos.
Re:Lie! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 18:13 · Score: 0

We're pretty much stuck electing Republicans until the Democrats marginalize the ignorant progressives who have taken over their party. Being racist anti-Semites, blame America firsters, and still believing in slowing the economy to a trickle economics at this late date completely disqualifies them for office.
Crazy progressives! Keep them out of office before the country is destroyed!
Bitter pills! Get your bitter pills! (And that's not even considering Obamacare)

Never in the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 09:55 · Score: 5, Funny

This could never happen in the USA.

Re:Never in the USA by superwiz · 2012-02-09 10:16 · Score: 1

What exactly? US government putting on payrolls people who would troll the net trashing a particular country in order to benefit election outcomes of a political party in the US? Well, there is any number of laws which this would break in the US.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Never in the USA by smash · 2012-02-09 12:48 · Score: 2

The brainwashing over there in the states is sufficiently complete enough that you have enough xenophobic ass-clowns available to do it themselves WITHOUT pay.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:Never in the USA by Xest · 2012-02-09 22:25 · Score: 1

There's laws against a lot of things in the US, but that's never stopped successive US governments breaking them.

Tu Quoque? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 09:57 · Score: 0

So Russia is no better in this regard than China, the U.S., and Israel.

Re:Tu Quoque? by superwiz · 2012-02-09 10:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, worse than Israel, that's for sure. Israel has legitimate security concerns, most of which, by the way, stem from Russian geo-political policies rather than from any of their own doing. It was Russia that goaded Egypt into wars with Israel. It was Russia that built both of Iran's nuclear reactors. It was Russia that supplied Syria with tanks that almost over-ran Israel. I don't recall Israel supplying half of Russia's neighbors with weapons to attack Israel, so I am pretty sure Israel has a higher moral ground in this one.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Tu Quoque? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 10:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

Israel has legitimate security concerns, most of which, by the way, stem from Russian geo-political policies
No. Israel has self-inflicted security concerns from acting as if they are a cut above the rest of the world's people and treating every non-Israeli with complete and utter disdain and contempt (and many countries collectively as sub-human) while conducting themselves as if they are above the laws to which every other country in the world is subject.
They have only been able to get away with this because they have owned the big dumb heavily-armed bullies (the US) lock, stock and barrel for decades. If you don't belive that, you need to find out who the biggest lobbyist group in the US is. Hint: it's called AIPAC.
Re:Tu Quoque? by superwiz · 2012-02-09 10:51 · Score: 1

I would respond to this rhetorical nonsense, but I suspect that it's just another tool used to deflect attention away from the issue of Russian propaganda.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Tu Quoque? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 11:19 · Score: 0

And it would seem that you're a tool deflecting attention away from Israel's crimes.
Re:Tu Quoque? by superwiz · 2012-02-09 11:31 · Score: 1

Israel is not the subject of the article. Russia and China are the topic under discussion.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Tu Quoque? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 11:37 · Score: 0

Actually, the topic is Russia's astroturfing. The only relevance your post had to the topic at hand was its astroturfing for the terrorist welfare state of Israel.
Re:Tu Quoque? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-09 12:13 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't recall Israel supplying half of Russia's neighbors with weapons to attack Israel
Did you mean to write "weapons to attack Russia"?
If so, then you might find it interesting that Israel has supplied Georgian army with UAVs, NVDs, AA systems, and many other things - all the stuff used during the war in South Ossetia, which, may I remind, was started by a Georgian attack on the area of responsibility of Russian UN peacekeeping force, and specifically on said peacekeeping force (10 people KIA from hostile fire - artillery and tanks shelled peacekeepers' barracks).
Re:Tu Quoque? by superwiz · 2012-02-09 12:42 · Score: 2

Umm. You are posting as an AC. I have over 900 posts over more than 10 years on this site. You can't possibly be arguing that I am astroturfing. Well, you can possibly be arguing that. Just not credibly.
Someone compared Israel to Russia's propaganda. I pointed out that comparison was laughable. But let me see. So first you tried a deflection. When that didn't work, you went for the ad hominem. When I reminded you that you were off the topic, you decided to go with projection. Do you have a list that you follow? Or do these float around in your ahead and you reach for whichever one make your more giddy?
No matter. My point stands. Russia is using the old Soviet tactics. Blaming Israel is one of many old Soviet tactics (because Israel gets people emotional and unable to evaluate the situation rationally). The main way of staying in power during a crisis of confidence is to manufacture a new crises. Just as blaming the Jews was an old Russian tactic, blaming Israel works beautifully. It's just statistically convenient -- smaller population means pissing off the least people while the crises unfolds.
Oh, and just so we are clear, the difference between astroturf and grass roots is that it's not astroturfing if no one pays you for it. If my own opinion happens to agree with that of what you'd call "Israeli propaganda", it's still not astroturfing. It just means that I buy their story. Ie, it's still grass roots. Whereas, the opinions that Russia bought to have trolled around are astroturf.
I am awaiting with anticipation to see what's on the list after the projection.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Tu Quoque? by cold+fjord · 2012-02-09 19:01 · Score: 1

...the war in South Ossetia, which, may I remind, was started by a Georgian attack on the area of responsibility of Russian UN peacekeeping force, and specifically on said peacekeeping force (10 people KIA from hostile fire - artillery and tanks shelled peacekeepers' barracks).
Well......

On Thursday of last week, South Ossetian separatists, supported by Moscow, escalated their machine gun and mortar fire attacks against neighboring Georgian villages. This past Thursday and Friday, Georgia attacked the separatist capital Tskhinvali with artillery to suppress fire. Tskhinvali suffered severe damage, thus providing the pretext for Moscow's long-planned invasion of Georgia.
As Russia responded with overwhelming force, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin flew from the Beijing Olympics to Vladikavkaz, taking control of the military operations. Putin sidelined his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, thereby leaving no doubt as to who is in charge. The 58th Russian Army of the North Caucasus Military District rolled into South Ossetia, reinforced by the 76th Airborne "Pskov" Division. Cossacks from the neighboring Russian territories moved in to combat the Georgians as well.
Russia is engaged in a classic combined arms operation. The Black Sea Fleet is blockading Georgia from the sea and likely preparing a landing, while Russian ballistic missiles and its air force are attacking Georgian military bases and cities. At the time of this writing, it looks as if Russian troops will not stop at the South Ossetian-Georgian border but may press their advantage further. -- The Russian-Georgian War: A Challenge for the U.S. and the World

The war has fundamentally transformed the realities on the ground in and around the conflict zones. Russia’s military intervention in support of South Ossetians and its peacekeeping forces has transformed its role from a mediator into a party of the conflict. Furthermore, Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states and its decision to veto the extension of the UN and OSCE missions operating in these conflict zones have led to a collapse of the peace process. This has led to the emergence of a dangerous security vacuum. A new security system has emerged on the ground with the establishment of Russian military bases and border guard units in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgia sees this as evidence of Russian occupation of its territories which are still recognised as part of Georgia by the absolute majority of the UN member states. Moreover, the presence of unarmed EU monitors on the Georgian side of the administrative border line with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, has not been effective in helping to resolve humanitarian problems associated with the war nor to prevent or minimise the violent incidents within the conflict zone. The Geneva discussions co-chaired by the EU, OSCE and UN offer the only platform for political dialogue between representatives from Russia, Georgia, US, as well as experts from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in regard to post-war challenges. - Analysis of the Russian-Georgian war

More: The Five-Day War
I think it would require a fair amount of cheek to imply that Georgia constituted an actual threat to Russia. On the other hand, Russia almost managed to repeat the Soviet "success" of Finland in the war with Georgia.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Tu Quoque? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 22:29 · Score: 0

I'm sorry but this is bullshit. Georgia started the attack. US tried very hard to portray Georgia as being good guys and South Osetia being the agressor, but that's just not true. The propaganda went to the point of cutting off sound in live CNN footage when a woman was interviewed and started telling the truth about who's the real agressor here.
So please, cut the bullshit.
Re:Tu Quoque? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 23:55 · Score: 0

OK, so you're a shill for Israel (and not a very bright one).
OK, so you're a Jew-hating sack of shit.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the truth
You don't have the slightest fucking idea what the truth is because your Jew-hate blinds you.

It's time for Israel to stop acting like victims - the world isn't buying that bullshit any more. Israel comes across as a cranky, childish trouble-maker that creates its own troubles through its miserable disrespect for any and all non-Israelis, or dogs as many Israelis think of them (especially its own local evolutionary cousins), and its disrespect for international law. ISRAEL looks to be Israel's own worst enemy.
Israel acting like victims? No.
The "problem" is that Israel and Jews are no longer acting like victims. They're no longer meekly accepting of being driven out. They no longer march meekly to their death. They stand up for themselves. They fight for what is theirs. They kill those who would kill them.
The trouble in the Middle East is because Israel's neighbors are pissed off because the Jews won't just lay down and die like sheep. Every time Israel's neighbors have attacked Israel they've gotten their shit pushed in. Proud Arabs getting their dicks knocked in the dirt by people that they consider to be a bunch of dirty, yahoodi animals, the sons of pigs and monkeys. How humiliating and shameful.
If they'd stop attacking Israel and stop trying to kills Jews and extend a hand of friendship they might find a hand of friendship extended in return. Instead they keep shaking their fists and throwing punches and then get all whiny and butthurt when their intended victim punches them in the face and knocks them on their ass.
Re:Tu Quoque? by superwiz · 2012-02-10 02:46 · Score: 1

UN peace keeping force wasn't keeping the peace. Georgia had the right to escalate by using overwhelming force against those who were attacking its population. The fact that Russians didn't get out of the way and decided to occupy Georgia was a Russian-made decision and it was outside of the UN mandate. To sum up, Georgia did not attack Russia. Georgian troops never on Russian territory. They never crossed the border with Russia. All the violence, provocation and escalation came from the Russian direction. Israel supplied Georgia while Georgia was the 3rd largest ally of the US in Iraq. In other words, Israel was supplying America's Iraq-war allies for the purposes of operations in Iraq. None of this comes even close to supplying Syria with thousands of Russian tanks which attempted to cross the border between Syria and Israel. Georgians never attempted to cross the Russian border. Everything Georgia did legally amounted to a defensive action (even if they did escalate it was in self-defense).

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Tu Quoque? by superwiz · 2012-02-10 02:52 · Score: 1

Oh, not only did Russia invade Georgia under a thinly veiled pretense in that operation, but legally speaking Russia committed acts of war against the US. They destroyed a US-built oil pipeline, going through Georgia to Turkey, which was not supplying Georgia itself (so it wasn't a military target). The fact that the pipeline was supplying Turkey meant that destroying it was a direct attack on NATO. I am not sure why this was not mentioned in the news quite as much.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Tu Quoque? by superwiz · 2012-02-10 03:05 · Score: 1

Did you mean to write "weapons to attack Russia"?
Yes, I did mean that. Unfortunately, I only noticed my mistake after submitting.
As for the rest of your comment, I explained why that not only was the aggressor Russia, but also that Israel was not supplying Georgia for the purposes of that war (it was supplying Georgia's operations as US ally in Iraq BEFORE the war with Russia). The explanation is here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2663515&cid=38994835 (or you could just scroll below).
To call the Russian occupation force a "UN keeping force" is a height of cynicism, by the way. Russia manufactured the strife between Georgians and the other Georgians. Then it manufactured the legend that Ossetians had a historical strife against Georgia. And all of it was done, again, to satisfy Russia's geo-political ambitions. It was simply keeping in-hand the ethnic group which lived on both sides of the tunnel. Russia clearly wanted to control the tunnel as a way to control access to the Georgian region post-USSR break up (because without it Russia would have no land access to the Black Sea). The ratio of Russian soldiers to native Ossetians is approximately 1 to 5. That's not a peace-keeping force. That's a military invasion force using ossetians as a token excuse for its occupation.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Tu Quoque? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-10 04:54 · Score: 1

To call the Russian occupation force a "UN keeping force" is a height of cynicism, by the way. Russia manufactured the strife between Georgians and the other Georgians. Then it manufactured the legend that Ossetians had a historical strife against Georgia. And all of it was done, again, to satisfy Russia's geo-political ambitions.

So you're basically repeating Georgian propaganda word for word. Have you actually ever talked to any Ossetian to see if they consider themselves "Georgians", or to hear what they can say about "manufactured strife"? Do you even realize that those guys even speak a completely different, non-mutually-intelligible language?
I wonder what your take on Kosovo is...

because without it Russia would have no land access to the Black Sea
I would advise doing some minimal research before posting obviously stupid things. If you just look at the map, Russia already has a Black Sea coastline of it's own, on the territory that no-one disputes (ever heard of Sochi?). In fact, it's actually longer than that of Georgia. It has some large port cities, too.

The ratio of Russian soldiers to native Ossetians is approximately 1 to 5.

That may be the current ratio, after the war (the figure still strikes me as BS, as that would require a deployment of 360k troops - the entire standing Russian ground forces! - in the region; but I didn't bother to check). Anyway, given that Georgia still hasn't given up its ambitions to re-annex Ossetia, by force if needed, I dare say that it's a reasonable precaution. Fool me twice and all that.
However, before Georgian army went gung-ho there, there were 250 peacekeepers stationed on Ossetian territory. There used to be more, but in 2007 Georgia raised a fuss about this thing, so most of them were withdrawn. Now we know why they asked.
Re:Tu Quoque? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-10 05:10 · Score: 1

South Ossetian separatists, supported by Moscow, escalated their machine gun and mortar fire attacks against neighboring Georgian villages
This is basically saying "things are as they always were". Both sides have been making covert sniper and mortar shots at each other across the ceasefire line pretty much since the Ossetian independence war was over in 1992. "Escalation" just means that they start firing more - usually it goes tit for tat, with someone escalating based on some perceived grievance, the other side responding in kind, etc until they run out of what they've got and calm down for a while - this has also been going on for a long time. It's also something very hard for peacekeepers to deal with, especially when local governments on both sides of the border tacitly support their paramilitaries in their actions.

This past Thursday and Friday, Georgia attacked the separatist capital Tskhinvali with artillery to suppress fire. Tskhinvali suffered severe damage
What this kinda misses is that there were Russian peacekeepers (under UN mandate) stationed in Tskhinvali, and Georgian army has directly assaulted its headquarters when they attacked the city, killing 15 people.
Now let me ask you - suppose Serbia decides to retake Kosovo tomorrow, invades it with ground forces, and pummels some American KFOR base there, killing a dozen peacemakers. What will US do? Drive the attacking force out of the region, and stop at that?

On the other hand, Russia almost managed to repeat the Soviet "success" of Finland in the war with Georgia.
Not sure what you mean to imply here. Georgian army was in full retreat for the second half of the war, and they were basically preparing for a last stand at Tbilisi, the country's capital. Russian troops were quite happy to keep on rolling there, as well - in fact, there was one ironic moment in the war when a Chechen batallion has almost started assault on Tbilisi because they didn't get the orders to hold back in time.
Re:Tu Quoque? by superwiz · 2012-02-10 09:29 · Score: 1

So you're basically repeating Georgian propaganda word for word.
Calling facts "propaganda" does not make them any less facts. I have no idea what Geogia's position is. But these ARE the facts.

Have you actually ever talked to any Ossetian to see if they consider themselves "Georgians"
I have seen interviews with them conducted before 2000. And the passions were nowhere near as flamed as they are now. It took years of Russia flaming those passions in order for them to burn into people's memory as a legend.

Do you even realize that those guys even speak a completely different, non-mutually-intelligible language?
Do you understand that there is 70000 ossetians living in Georgia? That's not an ethnic group. That's a condominium. There is over 2000 languages in India. Many of them are spoken by a small isolated group living in a very small region. Does that mean that they are not Indians? What's worse is that Georgians and Ossetians have no beef. They don't compete for any territory (because Ossetians are isolated). The only point of disagreement was that Ossetians wanted independence. Somehow that also meant that they wanted Russian citizenship. Well, that's not an ethnic dispute. That's a separatist territorial dispute. And yes, I have seen interviews with people essentially saying that Russia was handing out passports to Ossetians after the break up of Soviet Union in order to increase Ossetian's affinity for Russia.

That may be the current ratio, after the war (the figure still strikes me as BS, as that would require a deployment of 360k troops
No, there is only 70,000 Ossetians living in Georgia. How convenient it is that you added the population of ossetians in Russia to that of Georgia to make them sound larger in number. I wonder if that was a mistake or a deliberate slight of hand. Actually, no, I do not wonder.

Georgia still hasn't given up its ambitions to re-annex Ossetia
Georgia doesn't have to re-annex Ossetia. It is legally Georgian. Every international body recognizes it as such.

I dare say that it's a reasonable precaution.
To what? Georgia handling its affairs? Should UN station peace keeping force in Grozniy in order to protect the local population from Russia attempting to re-annex that region? This is legally equivalent.

However, before Georgian army went gung-ho there, there were 250 peacekeepers stationed on Ossetian territory.
Once again, they didn't go "gung-ho". The peace keepers weren't able to keep the peace. There was machine gun fire coming out of Ossetia and hitting targets in the rest of Georgia. Every nation would respond with overwhelming force to that. Georgia did the only responsible thing possible. If the peace keepers can't pacify the population they are protecting, it is the peace keepers responsibility to evacuate when the counter-attack begins.
But that's moot. If Russia didn't provoke the whole situation in order to keep access to the Black Sea, Georgia would continue to develop its modernized democracy. And they were doing a better job of it than Russia itself was. You know people accuse Arabs of being overly hostile, but Russia is worse. There isn't a despotic regime they don't like. And don't take my word for it. Listen to the voices of its own comedians -- RUSSIAN comedians. This is what they mock Russia for when they want to make a joke.

There used to be more, but in 2007 Georgia raised a fuss about this thing, so most of them were withdrawn.
So you got so convoluted in your own lies that you contradicted your own claims in the same post? 250 peace keepers and most of them were withdrawn? And then Georgia attacked the peacekeepers? The ones who left? Or are you gonna tell me that 20 of them stayed and that when Georg

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Tu Quoque? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-10 10:24 · Score: 1

I have seen interviews with them conducted before 2000.
Conducted by whom? Georgian government TV channel?

And the passions were nowhere near as flamed as they are now.
Did you miss that whole bit where Ossetia fought a war of independence from Georgian in 1991-92, after the then-president Gamsakhurdia proclaimed "Georgia for Georgians"? Did you miss the part where it won said war, and remained de facto independent since then, with no intention to ever rejoin Georgia?
Are you seriously saying that without "inflammation", Ossetians would just let Georgian army walk into Tskhinvali and annex the territory?

Do you understand that there is 70000 ossetians living in Georgia? That's not an ethnic group. That's a condominium. There is over 2000 languages in India. Many of them are spoken by a small isolated group living in a very small region. Does that mean that they are not Indians?
You're comparing apples and oranges. India is a multiethnic, multicultural federation, by design. Georgia is a monoethnic nation-state, also by design - it has a very strong identity that, among other things, is centered around language.

The only point of disagreement was that Ossetians wanted independence. Somehow that also meant that they wanted Russian citizenship. Well, that's not an ethnic dispute. That's a separatist territorial dispute. And yes, I have seen interviews with people essentially saying that Russia was handing out passports to Ossetians after the break up of Soviet Union in order to increase Ossetian's affinity for Russia.
Ossetians wanted Russian citizenship so that Russia would have more reasons to protect their independence, which is precisely what happened.
And yes, passports are given out. In a similar vein, e.g. Estonia hands out its passports to Russian citizens living in western Pskov oblast, in territories that were at some point a part of Estonia. Is that a problem?

No, there is only 70,000 Ossetians living in Georgia. How convenient it is that you added the population of ossetians in Russia to that of Georgia to make them sound larger in number.
I misread your comment - I thought it was 5 Russian soldiers for every Ossetian one, and hence took that 70k figure (actually it's 72k), and multiplied by 5. My apologies - if the real figure is ~15k, that sounds both realistic, and reasonable in the light of present tension.

Georgia doesn't have to re-annex Ossetia. It is legally Georgian. Every international body recognizes it as such.
"Legality" is a funny concept when it comes to international affairs. Every international body recognizes Taiwan as a province of PRC - does this mean that you'll be perfectly content if PRC shells Taipei tomorrow, and then rolls tanks through its streets?
Also, if you love international bodies so much, how about the fact that the presence Russian peacekeepers in Ossetia was affirmed as legal by UN and OSCE? You can't refer to UN when it comes to county recognition, and then ignore it on other issues. Either it's trustworthy to decide such things, or it's not.

To what? Georgia handling its affairs? Should UN station peace keeping force in Grozniy in order to protect the local population from Russia attempting to re-annex that region? This is legally equivalent.
That's actually a very good idea, regarding Chechnya. My own personal opinion on that is that Russia should just leave that province for good - the locals obviously don't want it, and it's a huge money and resource drain, not to mention terrorism implications.

Once again, they didn't go "gung-ho". The peace keepers weren't able to keep the peace. There was machine gun fire coming out of Ossetia and hitting targets in the rest of Georgia. Every nation would respond with overwhelming force to that. Georgia did t
Re:Tu Quoque? by superwiz · 2012-02-10 13:35 · Score: 1

I have seen interviews with them conducted before 2000.
Conducted by whom? Georgian government TV channel?
US-based Russian-speaking journalists.

Estonia hands out its passports to Russian citizens living in western Pskov oblast, in territories that were at some point a part of Estonia. Is that a problem?
Not in itself. You want to argue each event in isolation and hope that it will make the entire picture stink less. It won't. The fact that Estonia gives out passports (if it's true) to those who can trace their heritage to relatives living in Estonia a few generations ago is Estonian business. Poland does the same thing, from what I know and so does Ireland. It's just that when Ireland guarantees Irish citizenship to anyone who can prove that they are "Irish", they are not doing it in order to make a claim on parts of Long Island. Whereas Russia started giving those passports to Georgian citizens, who were not even Russian and then used their citizenship to make a territorial claim on Georgia.

Cry me a river. If you build your property on the territory of a country which initiates a war, and it gets ruined in a counterattack, you have only yourself to blame. Especially when your foreign policy and military aid was what made that country think it could actually pull such a thing off.
First of all, it wasn't a counter attack. Russia was the aggressor. And second of all, trust me. I wasn't crying. If anything I was decrying the Bush's level of engagement in Iraq. Since it made us unable to assist even our own allies. I am not complaining about Russia attacking US and Turkey -- I expect it from Russia. Certainly what Russia did to Georgia was far worse than what it did to Turkey. I am complaining about the ineptness of the US administration in its inability to put a proper check on the Russian aggression against US and its allies.

Must have been because they were hoping to walk their army into Moscow.
Strawman much?
No, that was sarcasm. I was mocking your suggestion that Georgia attacked Russia.

US was in no position to assist, because it only took the whole world - including, at last, the US as well - a couple of days to realize who started the conflict.
Oh? And not because Russia moved thousands of tanks within 48 hours into Georgia through the tunnel which started the whole thing? Not because we couldn't spare troops to simply block the roads used by those tanks? Just as US would not fire on Russia, I expect that Russians would not have dared to fire on Americans.

Yes, they did hit precisely the peace keeping force.
The fact that they eventually targeted does not prove that they initially targeted it. I am sure if they took fire from that base, they would target it at some point during the operation. Even if the base itself was directly targeted, it wouldn't prove that it was the initial target. You'd have to prove that it was the very first target which they hit before you can make the claim that Georgia started the aggression. No one has shown anything even remotely close to that. In the absence of exact evidence, only the most logical explanation of the existing evidence must be assumed to be the best explanation. And the most logical explanation was that Russia saw this as their last chance to cut the pipeline which was allowing the oil to flow from Azerbaijan to Turkey without going through Russia first.

However, even within the USSR there were constant tensions regarding e.g. administrative and school language
In every Republic of the USSR the "native" languages were the languages which were namesakes of the republics. In Georgia that would have to be Georgian. Since the native languages were considered quaint, many smaller regions simply wanted t

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

ASTROTURFING by slashdot user Putin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 09:58 · Score: 0

Slashdot user Vladimir Putin, and his sockpuppet accounts are posting pro-soviet Russia propaganda. Don't believe a word of it.

Now, in the US! by zooblethorpe · 2012-02-09 09:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am disgusted to discover that a politician would hire people to say nice things about them and bad things about their opponents. This must stop at once.

Indeed. In fact, I've got a lovely bridge to sell to anyone who thinks that something similar isn't already happening in the US, or really, in just about any Internet-savvy nation.

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."

Re:Now, in the US! by Grishnakh · 2012-02-09 10:28 · Score: 1

We've already seen it over and over again here in the US with Microsoft, and that isn't even politics. (They even have an official name for their astroturfers: "Technical Evangelists") With all the campaign money that Obama's amassed, he's surely doing the same thing.
Re:Now, in the US! by Pecisk · 2012-02-09 11:08 · Score: 1

Why on every criticism on Russia there's usual comparing with US? In this case, heaviest astroturfing from Microsoft pales from organizational level of Kremlin "web force". These guys are full time, full convinced that they are doing right job, not some bored PR guys playing "casual users".

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Re:Now, in the US! by Required+Snark · 2012-02-09 12:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

After the fall of the Soviet Bloc, both US and Russia and it's satellite states have followed a very similar course. The governments are merging with the money/power elites. In Russia they are relatively honest, and talk about the "oligarchs". In the US this is going on under the radar.
There are differences. In Russia the oligarchs are untouchable as long as they don't challenge Putin politically or economically. All policy foreign and domestic is under sole control of the state.
In the US it is the opposite. Large areas of government policy are being controlled by the corporate elites. That is was ACTA/SOPA/etc are all about, as is TARP and the ongoing bank/Wall Street bailout. The government is shielding corrupt and inefficient corporate entities from the consequences of their incompetent behavior.
When Jamie Diamon, head of JPMorgan, said that "we have a right to make a profit", he was speaking literally. He thinks that the big banks are not subject to capitalism and should have guaranteed success. This is much closer to a feudal society, where the landed aristocracy always has the best, even when the peasants are starving. It is not capitalism, where failure is always an option. FDR called this "economic royalism", which is a good description of our current economic system.

--
Why is Snark Required?
Re:Now, in the US! by Pecisk · 2012-02-09 18:53 · Score: 2

You really *don't* have a fucking clue what's going on in Russia, do you? Completely empty buzzword comparison. While of course it's oligarchy, however it is totally different in execution.
Believe me, what's going on with Capitalism in US and the world is bad enough on their own. There's no need to attach it to to every criticism on Russia :)

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!

Cool, brah. by zooblethorpe · 2012-02-09 09:59 · Score: 1

I read that as "astrosurfing program" and it sounded a lot better than a couple of hired goons shilling for Uncle Vlad. Oh well...

For make glorious People's Republic of Brah, brah.

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."

Commies by Spliffster · 2012-02-09 10:00 · Score: 0

Propaganda is only something for commies

Re:Commies by Johann+Lau · 2012-02-09 10:17 · Score: 2

Yeah... good thing Slashdot is completey squeaky clean of it :D
Re:Commies by Spliffster · 2012-02-09 11:17 · Score: 2

sry, i forgot the sarcasm tag.
Re:Commies by Johann+Lau · 2012-02-09 12:24 · Score: 1

Sarcasm? That is so unamerican not even a stinkin' commie would dare to use it!!! For shame. >:[

I wish to express outrage over this bad reporting by MyLongNickName · 2012-02-09 10:05 · Score: 5, Funny

This poor news coverage by _SLASHDOT_ is clearly aimed at making the Russian People's leader look bad to this _AMERICAN_ audience. As a Russian _MAN_ aged _32_, I can conclusively state that Mr. Putin has been a blessing to my country. I look forward to his continuing to lead us throught _2012_ and in the future.

Signed,
_MyLongNickName_

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year

If they've been paying for that... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 10:10 · Score: 0

...they should ask their money back. That's all.

C'mon, now by CanHasDIY · 2012-02-09 10:18 · Score: 0

They gotta be Putin us on!

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Quod Est Demonstratum by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 10:20 · Score: 0, Interesting

mod = -1;

Re:Russians are faget by superwiz · 2012-02-09 10:22 · Score: 2

PR stunt #37: assume the position opposite of the one you promote and make sure you sound extremely stupid when you defend it.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

Re:I wish to express outrage over this bad reporti by superwiz · 2012-02-09 10:24 · Score: 1

Umm... cute. I assume you are trying to imply that you forgot to substitute the values of the macros in that post?

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

putin us on by msheekhah · 2012-02-09 10:25 · Score: 1

I am a CIA plant. Prove me wrong.

--
Mark Anthony Collins

Re:putin us on by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-09 12:17 · Score: 1

I am a CIA plant. Prove me wrong.
Last I checked, plants can't type, being mostly immobile. ~

I will comment, but first, an important question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 10:26 · Score: 0

Are we for or against the "Ruskies" today?

Bush did it. by bussdriver · 2012-02-09 10:27 · Score: 1

Bush did it and like everything else no laws apply to him. ever. Like Nixon said, its not illegal if the president does it.
Only was caught with a half dozen or so; here is the top google result I found in no time: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/26/politics/main669432.shtml

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Re:Bush did it. by superwiz · 2012-02-09 10:47 · Score: 1

Bush administration did NOT adapt the policy "if the President does it, it's not illegal." Your point about the columnist is very, very keen, but that administration did clear everything with lawyers. And employing a journalist to promote a life-style that HHS considers healthy (even if you disagree with that assessment) is a far, far cry from employing journalists to spread subversive information about other countries in order to influence elections in the home country. Having said that, I would agree that the Bush administration came a little too close to the line of breaking the law on this one. And yes, it is veeery troubling. I am surprised, however, that you chose the Bush administration as your example. The current administration completely ignores the law on just about everything. It does so brazenly, openly and unapologeticlly.
And yes, the fact that the Obama administration is breaking laws as brazenly as it does is scandalous. The fact that Russia is actively working to promote and defend its nationalist policies through propaganda is also scandalous. Both are symptoms of the same disease: no one likes giving up power voluntarily.
Btw, the only reason that Russia's actions are even surprising while China's aren't is that everyone assumes that China is a military dictatorship. Yes, military rather than Communist dictatorship. It hasn't been Communist for so long that a different denomination has to be used.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Bush did it. by bussdriver · 2012-02-09 17:10 · Score: 1

Your bias is showing. Obama IS using his lawyers and building upon what Bush did and taking it to the next logical step. He is not breaking the laws any more than Bush did (so yes, I think he is breaking them too;) he is a continuation, it is almost as if Bush was still in office on some issues. It is almost as if somebody else is running the agenda and either dictating policy moves or makes sure both parties think the same way on certain issues. It looks like a good cop bad cop situation to me; some see obama as the good cop and others saw bush as the good cop. I don't give a rip for the social issue placating either side does while the real important stuff goes unnoticed.
Just because some evil lawyer says something is legal does not make it legal; if YOUR lawyer said something was legal and you did it, you would be the one in court and being punished for it.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Not a surprise by Hentes · 2012-02-09 10:27 · Score: 1

Every political party in every country with internet in it has paid commenters. I believe most people here have already seen more than enough of them.

Job Posting: Corporate Communications by garthsundem · 2012-02-09 10:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

A country recently named a 2012 Top Cock-Blocker of Middle Eastern Democracy, is seeking a Public Relations Specialist to communicate to its internal, external, and exiled audiences. The position will be responsible for connecting with our 141,750,000+ domestic "employees", introducing new employees and interns to our country's unique culture, expanding its social networking reach, maintaining the corporate website, event planning, cultivating community relationships, responding to media inquiries, writing and disseminating press releases, coaching our subsidiaries on their individual PR needs, crushing dissent, and mentoring an intern. The ideal candidate is self-directed and self-motivated, resourceful, tactful, and enjoys kicking puppies. You must be a persuasive writer and speaker. Your success will be measured by your creativity and your ability to ruin the lives of dissenters and their extended families with little to no supervision. A college degree plus five years or more experience in a corporate PR or Spanish Inquisitional environment is required. Please submit a brief writing sample with your resume and your soul to PR@Putin.com. Salary commensurate with experience.

--
GeekDad, TED speaker, Wipeout loser, author of Brain Trust

Re:Job Posting: Corporate Communications by smash · 2012-02-09 12:45 · Score: 1

I take issue with your use of "democracy". Military coup installed puppet governments don't really count.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:Job Posting: Corporate Communications by garthsundem · 2012-02-10 02:46 · Score: 1

True that. Military coup installed puppet governments...in the name of democracy!

--
GeekDad, TED speaker, Wipeout loser, author of Brain Trust

10 year old news by alexmin · 2012-02-09 10:47 · Score: 2

To those who read Russian interwebs since '90 the rise of government astroturfing should have been obvious starting about '00. There was a marked change in tone and verbage of forum comments on different online forums. Such posters are called "brigades" and thought to be FSB operatives.

Active on Wikipedia, too? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 10:51 · Score: 0

Not surprised, I've been a little suspicious of certain edits of Wikipedia articles involving Putin and his allies/rivals as well. Originally I figured it was just their nationalist contingent exerting pressure -- but this explanation makes a lot of sense too.

Outrage in 3, 2, 1.... by Pecisk · 2012-02-09 10:55 · Score: 1

....Ohhh, nevermind :)

This is actually non-news. Everyone with long enough experience with web for last four years have seen them at almost any article or resource giving Russia, Soviet Union or Kremlin bad rep. Wikipedia articles about USSR or about Bolshevist crimes - those pages have experienced heavy shelling from these guys. They are obsessed with pointing that you are wrong, not they.

I don't even care about them anymore. I'm just sad that such big country and yet they are living in paranoia, investing almost nothing in infrastructure, but in same time waste their money to play hardliners and allow people to die (yeah, about Syria), and meddling with politics in their neighborhood countries. You can't get your respect in such way.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!

Re:Outrage in 3, 2, 1.... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-09 12:21 · Score: 1

I don't even care about them anymore. I'm just sad that such big country and yet they are living in paranoia, investing almost nothing in infrastructure, but in same time waste their money to play hardliners and allow people to die (yeah, about Syria), and meddling with politics in their neighborhood countries. You can't get your respect in such way.
I hope you do understand the difference between "them" as in Russian government, and "them" as in Russian people - especially when the country is not exactly democratic. People are actively working at changing that last part right now, which would hopefully also let us do something about those things you're complaining about, or at least some of them (I don't think a post-Putin Russia would back Assad, for example). But it doesn't help when you choose to "not care anymore".
Re:Outrage in 3, 2, 1.... by smash · 2012-02-09 12:43 · Score: 2

I don't even care about them anymore. I'm just sad that such big country and yet they are living in paranoia, investing almost nothing in infrastructure, but in same time waste their money to play hardliners and allow people to die (yeah, about Syria), and meddling with politics in their neighborhood countries. You can't get your respect in such way
Sounds pretty much exactly the same as the USA to me. Replace Syria with, oh I dunno... Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Same shit, different media spin. If you think you lot living over there in the US are currently living in a *legitimate* democracy, you're fucking kidding yourselves. Obama (new bush) = same as the old bush, pretty much. Just has charisma.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:Outrage in 3, 2, 1.... by FilatovEV · 2012-02-09 22:45 · Score: 1

It's a big mistake to believe that pro-Putin commenters are paid for. Having a score of pro-Putin comments of my own, I believe I can outline that mindset for you. 1) The tone of the political commentaries in Russia is radically different from that in the United States. While Vladimir Putin is ranked among the top politicians in today's Russia, opinions of many people on him would diverge, precisely because there's an ongoing discussion in the society about Putin, and people are exposed to a wide range of ideas. Now, what happens when a Russian average Ivan visits the website of some American newspaper? Imagine if you have opened some Russian newspaper and read there that President Obama is the evil, corrupt, a cause of manslaughter? You snorted and opened other newspaper. And read there the same stuff in a different wording. Then you have opened 10 Russian newspapers, to find only a little difference in their reporting on Obama. How soon will you break up and start writing pro-Obama comments? 2) The more important issue is, that as a Prime Minister or a President, Mr. Putin is an embodiment of the Russian state. People feel that attacks on Mr. Putin are not personal, but directed against the Russian Government. If there was a different politician with a similar set of ideas (quite popular in the society), the coverage of Russia would not change to the better. So, people who support Putin in the comments of Western resources may not even support Putin as a Russian politician -- but they effectively try to support the Russian state.

Better summary by fibonacci8 · 2012-02-09 11:02 · Score: 2

Russia and China also have super pacs.

--
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.

Re:I wish to express outrage over this bad reporti by iroll · 2012-02-09 11:15 · Score: 2

No, he's implying that he input values into blanks on a boilerplate response.

--
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR

We have something similar here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 11:35 · Score: 0

"Quoting The Guardian: 'A pro-Kremlin group runs a network of internet trolls, seeks to buy flattering coverage of Vladimir Putin and hatches plans to discredit opposition activists and media" ...called the Democratic Party.

Re:I wish to express outrage over this bad reporti by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-09 12:16 · Score: 1

You forgot to mention that this slanderous publication was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense in order to destabilize progress and development in Russia.

That's -50% from your pay, by the way. Be more attentive next time. ~

Re:I wish to express outrage over this bad reporti by JSG · 2012-02-09 12:34 · Score: 1

Gosh, isn't English subtle!

You have managed to correct Mr 655733's interpretation of Mr 822545's comment with a functionally equivalent interpretation.

As for Mr 822545 - he should have done a better job of underlining. He simply should have typed the words and then used backspace on his typewriter and then put in the underscores. Isn't progress great?

Cheers
Jon

well, considering.. by smash · 2012-02-09 12:38 · Score: 2

... the last 50-60 years of western anti-soviet propaganda, its only fair.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.

Well Syria's Assad has Huffington Post by gelfling · 2012-02-09 12:46 · Score: 1

What's fair is fair.

Re:I wish to express outrage over this bad reporti by iroll · 2012-02-09 13:06 · Score: 1

Sort of; technically, I reversed part of his interpretation and clarified nuance in the rest. So, while some of the functions (macro vs. blank) might be equivalent, the interpretation is not. Viz.:

Mr. 655 thinks Mr. 822 was implying that he forgot to fill in the blanks. I believe the opposite, that Mr. 822 was implying that he was filling in blanks.
M4. 655 thinks that Mr. 822 was implying electronic substitution, whereas I believe that Mr. 822 was only implying blank-filling; this could be accomplished electronically or manually.

Anyways, if Mr. 822 was filling out the kinds of official documents that seem to appear most commonly in my office, he had to delete those underscores to keep Word from wrapping them and blowing up the table that the sadistic form author used to format the whole damned thing ;-) He probably would be better off printing it out, and then taking it to the typewriter.

--
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR

Re:I wish to express outrage over this bad reporti by SplashMyBandit · 2012-02-09 13:51 · Score: 1

+6 Funny

The difference between the US and this is by melted · 2012-02-09 18:13 · Score: 3, Informative

The difference between the US and this is that in Russia this is paid for with enormous amounts of taxpayer money (hired drummers alone at a pro-Puting meeting cost something like $800K), and people are threatened with pink slips at work unless they go to pro-government meetings. When you live hand to mouth and don't have any savings, the prospect of getting fired over some BS meeting is pretty scary. And when the election time rolls around, they stuff the ballot boxes, and then if that proves insufficient, simply rewrite final counts when no one is looking. That country is truly ruled by a bunch of crooks and thieves. Can't wait to see the Russian people to hang them on the "teeth" of the Kremlin wall. They did this a hundred years ago, they can do it again. Russia just can't catch a fucking break.

Re:The difference between the US and this is by FilatovEV · 2012-02-09 21:55 · Score: 1

Yep. What a blessing that you live in the free and prosperous United States, which has no problems of its own!
Re:The difference between the US and this is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 10:24 · Score: 0

The difference between Russia and the US is that in the US this is paid for with enormous amounts of corporate money (hired corporate lobbyists alone at a single fund-raising dinner cost like $1000s per plate), and people are threatened with pink slips at work unless they go to corporate meetings. When you live paycheck to paycheck and don't have any savings, the prospect of getting fired over some BS meeting is pretty scary. And when election time rolls around, the choice between parties is barely noticeable, and then if that proves insufficient, simply rewrite final counts (starting in Florida) when no one is looking. The country is truly ruled by a bunch of military-industrial-congressional crooks and financial industry thieves. Can't wait to see the US people go independent. They did this 240 years ago, they can do it again. The US just can't catch a fucking break. [Fixed, for illustrative purposes.]
Re:The difference between the US and this is by melted · 2012-02-10 21:14 · Score: 1

Oh no, the US has a ton of problems. But it it's nowhere near as bad as today's (and tomorrow's, for at least another few years) Russia. Here, you can easily live your entire life without giving or receiving a bribe. There, it's just a fact of life, and some fairly mundane things just can't be done without bribing someone. Here, in a court of law, you actually have a pretty solid chance of getting a fair trial. There, you have to bribe the judge and hope to god that your opponent did not pay more (or is not a government bureaucrat; if so you can die in prison for no fault of your own). Here, when a police officer stops your car, he has a legitimate concern about the way you're driving, there it's to shake you down. And so on and so forth.
This _will not_ end well. They now have a whole generation of people in their mid- to late 20s, born in early to mid-80's and raised without fear. Given the lack of upward mobility, these folks are now wondering why is it that a bunch of Politburo style old farts are running the country and not sharing the wealth. Given the lack of the proper political system, the only way for these folks to get what they want will be to overthrow the government one way or another. I give it another 5 years. Putin will not complete his third term.
Re:The difference between the US and this is by FilatovEV · 2012-02-11 00:37 · Score: 1

You've described some magic country that I am not able to see. Isn't it the U.S. where the young people believe the wealth is not fairly distributed and dream of the Socialism? http://exiledonline.com/thirty-more-years-of-hell/
Re:The difference between the US and this is by melted · 2012-02-11 08:13 · Score: 1

I have news for you, wealth was not fairly distributed even in the USSR. Some had more than others.
And where did I say anything about "fair" distribution of wealth? There's no such thing. There is such a thing as living without bribery and theft.
Re:The difference between the US and this is by FilatovEV · 2012-02-11 20:20 · Score: 1

You've said: "Given the lack of upward mobility, these folks are now wondering why is it that a bunch of Politburo style old farts are running the country and not sharing the wealth. Given the lack of the proper political system, the only way for these folks to get what they want will be to overthrow the government one way or another."
Do I understand you correctly that you believe there's a lot of young folks in Russia who have a global competitive edge, but cannot fully realize their true economic potential due to the inefficient political system?
First, it's a bit of a strange view, because most often the young people would start their careers as hired workers. What should matter the most for them at that point is getting a proper education, which is impossible without adequate governmental educational policies. So, at least in order get a proper start of their careers, young people should rely on the Government, rather than free market.
Second, if and when the young people become mature as hired workers and would consider starting their own businesses, they would be already in their 30s-40s. So, you would like to give the generation of mid-80's another 15 years. Unfortunately, by that time they would sort of absorb the ideas of bribery, if they have any ideals left by now. So, they would bribe the officials to get what they want.
Essentially, the only institution in Russia interested in getting rid of the corruption is the government itself, because getting rid of the corruption would maximize the amount of funds at their disposal (received as taxes and fines).
Re:The difference between the US and this is by melted · 2012-02-11 20:44 · Score: 1

Um, no. You don't have to rely on government to get good education. You just need a brain and a student loan. Second, you don't have to start as a hired worker, though it's not a bad option, and you certainly don't have to be in your 40's before you start your own. Sergey Brin is 38 (billionaire since his early 30's). Zuckerberg is 27. Russia makes trillions on oil and gas, Russians should live like kings.
Russian government is not interested in getting rid of bribery because they rely on it for their own prosperity. Putin would not have $30K watch if it wasn't for bribery. Medvedev would not have a $20K Leica digital camera (+20K watch). Their tax declarations are pathetic. Their incomes don't match their lifestyle by several orders of magnitude. Their "friends" control something like $150B+ of wealth. Do you seriously think they P&M don't take any of that to themselves?
Re:The difference between the US and this is by FilatovEV · 2012-02-11 21:17 · Score: 1

You've said: "Russia makes trillions on oil and gas, Russians should live like kings."
Let's consider oil. Russia produces 10 million barrels of oil per day. Multiply that by the price of a barrel (~100$) and divide that by Russia's population (140 million). You will get about 7$ a day. Incredible money!
Now what about gas? The net income of Gazprom in 2010 was 32 billion $. Divide that by 140 million -- you will get 230$ each year.
What a pity that you don't live in Russia! You would live like a king!
Re:The difference between the US and this is by melted · 2012-02-12 12:49 · Score: 1

To put things into perspective an extra $7/day would mean 28% boost to average per-capita GDP. And once that money enters the economy it really turns into $35, since banks loan it out five times over. Russian people could live a heck of a lot better if they saw any of that wealth. Instead, they're getting tax hikes later this year to help pay for government pensions.
BTW, are you one of those paid pro-Putin shills I keep reading about? To state, point blank, that the government in Russia is interested in eliminating corruption is just not the kind of thing someone would say without getting their hand greased.
Re:The difference between the US and this is by FilatovEV · 2012-02-12 19:16 · Score: 1

No, I am not.
Re:The difference between the US and this is by FilatovEV · 2012-02-12 19:42 · Score: 1

But it's so unusual that an American speaks in favor of a welfare state and supports the entitlement mentality. Is that because that's how Russians are supposed to think?
Thank you, you've reminded me that Putin does not pay me for commenting. I have enjoyed our conversation, but I really need to go back to my work.
Re:The difference between the US and this is by FilatovEV · 2012-02-12 19:54 · Score: 1

By the way, if you have a look at The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism, you would see that it says nothing about a welfare state or entitlement mentality. Rather than that: "he who does not work, neither shall he eat". So, rather, it looks like some code of corporate ethics, doesn't it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Code_of_the_Builder_of_Communism

illegal maybe, but it's done by radarradar · 2012-02-09 18:26 · Score: 1

There's stuff like the Pentagon's military analyst program. See

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pentagon_military_analyst_program

In fact, media massaging is so pervasive in the political culture that even local pols do it. Check this out:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/scott-walker-john-doe-investigation-explained

Hardly surprising by FilatovEV · 2012-02-09 21:05 · Score: 1

I live in Russia. I think, there's no problem with bloggers and activists receiving money, as long as they report their sources of income to the public. I think that the monetary support of some bloggers by the Nashi group is a response to the American aid programs (National Endowment for Democracy) to all sorts of activists in Russia. Essentially, the problem is not with the money -- the problem is with transparency and accountability. If I read some person's blog, I would like to know if he or she receives American or Russian money. For those Americans who do not understand what's wrong with the activities of the National Endowment for Democracy (and similar structures) in Russia, let me say, that there's nothing similar to the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the Russian legislature. The NED is not accountable to me, a citizen of Russia. So, yes, I view it as a security threat. Implementing the Foreign Agents Registration Act in Russia would take a lot of effort, but I believe it's the only possible way in the end. But as long as we do not have that law, I cannot feel outrageos about the Nashi support of some bloggers.

Re:Hardly surprising by temcat · 2012-02-09 21:50 · Score: 2

From my perspective, there is no problem at all on the part of bloggers and activists receiving money, since the validity of a point of view does not suddenly change just because its expression is paid for.
However, as a Russian, I do object to paying Russian taxpayers' money for that. I'm not concerned about American money since I don't pay taxes in the USA.
Re:Hardly surprising by FilatovEV · 2012-02-09 22:04 · Score: 1

"However, as a Russian, I do object to paying Russian taxpayers' money for that." Write to the President's blog about it.

And in the US.... by 3seas · 2012-02-10 03:13 · Score: 1

there is the so called main streme News knot.

Slashdot Mirror

Hacked Emails Reveal Russian Astroturfing Program

153 comments