if the police and criminal justice system are non-political. Which is almost never the case when it comes to protests and is not the case here.
Police and judges may be biased, but the jury is not. Sure, to the losing side of any court proceedings, it seems like the entire world conspired against them — that's typical.
But the fact remains, not one blogger was prosecuted for their blog posts in the US. Certainly none of the OWS-associated bloggers.
I'd go further and say that at most demonstrations the police commit more criminal acts than the demonstrators.
I do not see any references to McCarthy having thousands of people slaughtered
The depth and breadth of your historical knowledge is rivaled only by your inability to detect sarcasm.
That said, I hardly blame you — American's proclivity for equating their government's minor transgressions with the genuine evils of foreign regimes is as well known as it is unfortunate.
It's fairly easy to make any person into a criminal under US law.
Please, name an American blogger so prosecuted after being critical of the US government.
The worst we've seen so far is the increased IRS-scrutiny of government critics, but that, somehow, is usually Ok with the same folks, who like comparing NSA with KGB.
Occupy Wall Street on Trial: Cecily McMillan Convicted of Assaulting Cop, Faces Up to Seven Years
vs.
Which starts with the more outspoken amongst us rallying together, writing blogs about the social problems we face, proposing solutions, attending OWS type events to agitate peacefully for positive change.
Emphasis mine, of course. The two paragraphs contradict each other. Please, try again.
No, they just pass the information to the police that handles that job.
None of those arrested because of the NSA tip-off were arrested for their speech. It may or may not be in violation of the 4th Amendment, but not of the 1st.
Look at what happened to all the Occupy members.
What happened? Where do I look? For such a highly-moderated comment, you are offering surprisingly few links. Was anyone prosecuted for mere speech? Assaulting a police officer — yeah, that's more likely...
Funny how all the important people in the movement were found very accurately by police forces across the country.
Police may not be able to find every criminal, but finding any criminal they really set their minds on — that they could do for decades now. And, certainly, "the important people" of an infamous movement qualify. Hardly a surprise.
It is possible. Just very unlikely... The guy, who proclaimed himself "Prime Minister of Crimea", for example, only got 3% of the vote in the last normal elections.
Had Russia been so confident in success, they wouldn't have occupied the peninsula before the referendum.
Darling, you've declared me "crazy" once already. Why are you still responding to my posts? Can't resist? I, certainly, am not replying to you again — other than to point out your earlier name-calling.
As for the subject matter, unlike in your Motherland, Ukrainian news-sites are not government-controlled — and thus it is possible for credible information to appear there...
And yeah, it was "posted briefly", but long enough for Forbes to get a copy of it at just the right time
According to TFA, Forbes got their information from a Ukrainian site. They may have gotten a tip-off from Russia's Liberals — such as from Svetlana Gannushkina, who is mentioned in TFA by name. It is not too far-fetched for members of the body "somewhat famous for its opposition to Putin" to try to "get the truth out".
The information could have been posted long enough for Ukrainians to take a screenshot... That would explain all known facts.
In my view, this guy is simply a neo-con mouthpiece and has zero credibility.
Whether or not he is trustworthy, the numbers he is quoting are a lot more reasonable, than Putin's. Because a turn-out of 83% is simply unheard of. As is the 97% agreement — on anything. Heck, if you ask a million people, whether or not the 1st Commandment is humane, and you will not get 97% of respondents agreeing...
Unless you live under the rule of Saddam Hussein or Kim's dynasty or someone like that.
None of it matters, though — even if the referendum was honest and open, the results are invalid. Russia, for example, would never accept a vote of residents of Kurill Islands on joining Japan — especially, if conducted under the guns of polite Japanese "peacekeepers". Likewise the US would not accept a vote by Southern California to break away and join Mexico — especially if some future Santa Ana already occupies the land in question...
It takes years of planning and overcoming red tape to launch a project.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the evidence of lack (if not outright absence) of freedom. Sure, the government collecting records of our communications is scary. But the real threat is that more and more things are considered a privilege to be granted — or withdrawn — by the Executive, rather than a right, which can only be taken away by the Judiciary.
When even a (smaller) government — with officials fighting red tape during their paid-for work hours — has troubles overcoming red tape (from the bigger governments), what hope do ordinary citizens have?
The figures you offered apply to today's Russia. I asked for stats regarding the Soviet Union times — when the country really was a tyranny.
Guns may be acquired for self-defense, hunting or sports activities only. Russian citizens can buy smooth-bore long-barreled firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules
Right. Nothing, in other words, that could pose much of a challenge to the military or police.
Honestly in today's age, there is no excuse for lazy assed ppl to cry 'citation needed', this is not an encyclopedia, its a debate
And in a debate — whatever age — one should offer supporting evidence with the argument.
Private gun ownership was fairly common in the Soviet Union, at about 10 guns per 100 people, and is still common in Russia today.
Russia today may be better in this regard, but when I lived in USSR, I did not know a single person, who owned a weapon — even martial arts were frowned upon by the officials and what studios existed, were underground. Today in the US quite a few of my acquaintances have firearms — and my five year-old attends a karate class twice a week.
Where in your post did you refute my point that the American media is likewise biased
I made no attempts to address this particular point. I agree with it. Though, typically, American media tends to be biased against America, not for it.
Because to me it seemed like you launched immediately into 'technicalities and semantics' all on your own.
I refuted your attempts to muddle the issue of unrest in Ukraine. No mere technicalities there — there is no equivalence between the largely unarmed (or armed with crude homemade weapons) anti-Yanukovich protesters in Kyiv and the Russian collaboratives in the East (armed with RPGs and Kalashnikovs). Neither in methods, nor — more importantly — in goals.
Flying the wrong flag is not treason anywhere else in the world.
Throwing down your country's flag to replace it with that of an actual, current, active enemy is treason. If the Confederacy still existed today, using their flag instead of that of the United States would've been viewed as such.
Also your claim that foreign powers can only be held accountable if they desire to actually annex territory isn't valid.
I made no such claim. The claim I made, was that if they do, they are an enemy. There may be other ways to become an enemy — such as by blowing up a building full of people — but we don't need to get distracted by hypotheticals here. Unfortunately.
Try again, if you'd like, but without the bias, please.
I've already reduced you to arguing on technicalities and semantics. Nothing else left to do.
Kosovo, Iraq, Afganistan, Guantanamo, Libya, Syria just to name a few in the last 15 years. Tell me please, which one of those has been outdone by Russia?
Chechnya comes immediately to mind. That's where Putin himself was ordering tanks, multiple rocket-launchers and bombers to be used against his own citizens — something he now gravely warns Ukrainians against.
Then Afghanistan, with its over a million victims. Before that go military suppressions of popular uprisings in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and support (overt and covert) for various Arab regimes in their wars against Israel.
That takes care of military conflicts. Guantanamo is just too precious for words — an American-run prison... Do you know the conditions in Russian prisons — how easy it is to get into it and how hard it is to get out? Please, don't make me laugh.
The Vietnam war alone took more lives than all military conflicts the U.S.S.R. had been involed in since WWII. Combined.
I'd say you are ignorant, but these numbers are so easy to verify, you must be lying. Soviet war in Afghanistan killed 850,000–1,500,000 civilians (plus up to 90K fighting men). The Vietnam war killed 455,462–1,170,462. This alone deals with your "all military conflicts combined" false claim.
But there is more — the sole reason, Vietnam war was as bloody, was USSR's support for the Viet Cong. While we were fighting the spread of Communism — the single deadliest school of thought known to man (even Hitler's heinous strand of Fascism being but a distant second) — USSR was attempting to spread it. Without it, we would've prevailed — and quickly — and Vietnam today would've been more like South Korea, instead of being more like the North.
I know your educational system is wanting
I grew up in USSR — my educational system was perfect (in your opinion), so that's another "oopsie" for you. Remember to logout.
And if the other party takes control they'll be cozy with them.
You are implying sheer cynicism and I wish, it were this simple. It is not — the media-holdings of both companies are, quite (in)famously Illiberal. The National Review article I linked to has the detail. The sole Democrat fighting the merger is a clown...
Please don't try and tell us that somehow the republicans are such saints in this
I was not talking about Republicans. I was talking about the Administration currently in charge — in whose power it is to block the merger. Famously, Obama "has pen and phone", but would not use it. Considering the two companies' support for Democratic Party, it is not difficult to see why. Saint or not, if Bush was of similar disposition, Enron might still have been around...
At least the democrats have tried to pass net-neutrality rules which would put an end to the content based discrimination nonsense.
Even if such rules were desirable (and I doubt it), I don't see, how a free country can legally impose them.
We'll pay a bargain price, bear a reasonable burden, inconvenience ourselves a little bit, argue with friends, apologize to foes, in order to facilitate preconditions for the success of compliance.
their continual breakdown of government
Mostly thanks to Russian efforts to sabotage them. Yanukovich, for example — a violent felon in his past — would never have come close to being elected, had it not been for 24/7 propaganda efforts on his behalf by Kremlin-TV...
If BBC could reach American public in the 18th century, we too would've had "continual breakdown of government" back then — possibly even reverting to British rule. Unlike Putin, King George III was a rather benign and benevolent monarch and we had nothing genuinely evil to blame Britain for.
Slashdot Mirror
Being "unemployable" is scarier than sent to a prison camp? Seriously? Nowadays — when work-force participation is at multi-decades lows? Wow, I wonder, what color the sky is in your world...
But, alright, Ok, name one blogger made "unemployable" by the government for their posts critical of same.
Police and judges may be biased, but the jury is not. Sure, to the losing side of any court proceedings, it seems like the entire world conspired against them — that's typical.
But the fact remains, not one blogger was prosecuted for their blog posts in the US. Certainly none of the OWS-associated bloggers.
Irrelevant.
The depth and breadth of your historical knowledge is rivaled only by your inability to detect sarcasm.
That said, I hardly blame you — American's proclivity for equating their government's minor transgressions with the genuine evils of foreign regimes is as well known as it is unfortunate.
This was not a city employee ruling on a parking ticket. She was convicted by a jury.
"Who killed Comet Ison?" — an upcoming documentary by Michael Moore.
No, it does not mean that. It just makes it very likely. Beyond reasonable doubt likely...
But the point is, she was not a blogger — and was not prosecuted for peaceful speech as FriendlyLurker implied.
Please, name an American blogger so prosecuted after being critical of the US government.
The worst we've seen so far is the increased IRS-scrutiny of government critics, but that, somehow, is usually Ok with the same folks, who like comparing NSA with KGB.
Yes, yes. And Joseph McCarthy was just as bad as Lavrentiy Beria... Ergo, America is just as bad — nay, worse than Russia...
vs.
Emphasis mine, of course. The two paragraphs contradict each other. Please, try again.
None of those arrested because of the NSA tip-off were arrested for their speech. It may or may not be in violation of the 4th Amendment, but not of the 1st.
What happened? Where do I look? For such a highly-moderated comment, you are offering surprisingly few links. Was anyone prosecuted for mere speech? Assaulting a police officer — yeah, that's more likely...
Police may not be able to find every criminal, but finding any criminal they really set their minds on — that they could do for decades now. And, certainly, "the important people" of an infamous movement qualify. Hardly a surprise.
It is possible. Just very unlikely... The guy, who proclaimed himself "Prime Minister of Crimea", for example, only got 3% of the vote in the last normal elections.
Had Russia been so confident in success, they wouldn't have occupied the peninsula before the referendum.
As for the subject matter, unlike in your Motherland, Ukrainian news-sites are not government-controlled — and thus it is possible for credible information to appear there...
Whether or not he is trustworthy, the numbers he is quoting are a lot more reasonable, than Putin's. Because a turn-out of 83% is simply unheard of. As is the 97% agreement — on anything. Heck, if you ask a million people, whether or not the 1st Commandment is humane, and you will not get 97% of respondents agreeing...
Unless you live under the rule of Saddam Hussein or Kim's dynasty or someone like that.
None of it matters, though — even if the referendum was honest and open, the results are invalid. Russia, for example, would never accept a vote of residents of Kurill Islands on joining Japan — especially, if conducted under the guns of polite Japanese "peacekeepers". Likewise the US would not accept a vote by Southern California to break away and join Mexico — especially if some future Santa Ana already occupies the land in question...
It is not just the BMDs — there is a paradropping church in Russia's arsenal...
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the evidence of lack (if not outright absence) of freedom. Sure, the government collecting records of our communications is scary. But the real threat is that more and more things are considered a privilege to be granted — or withdrawn — by the Executive, rather than a right, which can only be taken away by the Judiciary.
When even a (smaller) government — with officials fighting red tape during their paid-for work hours — has troubles overcoming red tape (from the bigger governments), what hope do ordinary citizens have?
The figures you offered apply to today's Russia. I asked for stats regarding the Soviet Union times — when the country really was a tyranny.
Right. Nothing, in other words, that could pose much of a challenge to the military or police.
And in a debate — whatever age — one should offer supporting evidence with the argument.
Russia today may be better in this regard, but when I lived in USSR, I did not know a single person, who owned a weapon — even martial arts were frowned upon by the officials and what studios existed, were underground. Today in the US quite a few of my acquaintances have firearms — and my five year-old attends a karate class twice a week.
So, as they say, Citation needed...
I made no attempts to address this particular point. I agree with it. Though, typically, American media tends to be biased against America, not for it.
I refuted your attempts to muddle the issue of unrest in Ukraine. No mere technicalities there — there is no equivalence between the largely unarmed (or armed with crude homemade weapons) anti-Yanukovich protesters in Kyiv and the Russian collaboratives in the East (armed with RPGs and Kalashnikovs). Neither in methods, nor — more importantly — in goals.
Even if your "former physicist" nickname weren't a clue, your quick switch to ad-hominem is proof enough, you are a Russian...
Throwing down your country's flag to replace it with that of an actual, current, active enemy is treason. If the Confederacy still existed today, using their flag instead of that of the United States would've been viewed as such.
I made no such claim. The claim I made, was that if they do, they are an enemy. There may be other ways to become an enemy — such as by blowing up a building full of people — but we don't need to get distracted by hypotheticals here. Unfortunately.
I've already reduced you to arguing on technicalities and semantics. Nothing else left to do.
Chechnya comes immediately to mind. That's where Putin himself was ordering tanks, multiple rocket-launchers and bombers to be used against his own citizens — something he now gravely warns Ukrainians against.
Then Afghanistan, with its over a million victims. Before that go military suppressions of popular uprisings in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and support (overt and covert) for various Arab regimes in their wars against Israel.
That takes care of military conflicts. Guantanamo is just too precious for words — an American-run prison... Do you know the conditions in Russian prisons — how easy it is to get into it and how hard it is to get out? Please, don't make me laugh.
I'd say you are ignorant, but these numbers are so easy to verify, you must be lying. Soviet war in Afghanistan killed 850,000–1,500,000 civilians (plus up to 90K fighting men). The Vietnam war killed 455,462–1,170,462. This alone deals with your "all military conflicts combined" false claim.
But there is more — the sole reason, Vietnam war was as bloody, was USSR's support for the Viet Cong. While we were fighting the spread of Communism — the single deadliest school of thought known to man (even Hitler's heinous strand of Fascism being but a distant second) — USSR was attempting to spread it. Without it, we would've prevailed — and quickly — and Vietnam today would've been more like South Korea, instead of being more like the North.
I grew up in USSR — my educational system was perfect (in your opinion), so that's another "oopsie" for you. Remember to logout.
You are implying sheer cynicism and I wish, it were this simple. It is not — the media-holdings of both companies are, quite (in)famously Illiberal. The National Review article I linked to has the detail. The sole Democrat fighting the merger is a clown...
I was not talking about Republicans. I was talking about the Administration currently in charge — in whose power it is to block the merger. Famously, Obama "has pen and phone", but would not use it. Considering the two companies' support for Democratic Party, it is not difficult to see why. Saint or not, if Bush was of similar disposition, Enron might still have been around...
Even if such rules were desirable (and I doubt it), I don't see, how a free country can legally impose them.
And thus the famous words of Kennedy Doctrine became:
Mostly thanks to Russian efforts to sabotage them. Yanukovich, for example — a violent felon in his past — would never have come close to being elected, had it not been for 24/7 propaganda efforts on his behalf by Kremlin-TV...
If BBC could reach American public in the 18th century, we too would've had "continual breakdown of government" back then — possibly even reverting to British rule. Unlike Putin, King George III was a rather benign and benevolent monarch and we had nothing genuinely evil to blame Britain for.