Russian Anti-Putin Protests

[DeletedUser]

I thought Fox was "red, white n blue" and a typical example of Iraq-had-WMD? I commented on its usefulness before. I just don't arrive at the conclusion that anything not red white n blue is bound to be right. RT and Fox are qually useless and credible sources.

One of the clips was made by RT in response to wikileaks and, as usual for RT, it gave fodder for conspiracy theories.
And I didn't only mean this last post of yours, but I've seen you use RT as a source more often on this forum.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well i had a nice weekend away from the internet and i see few interesting things here. Lets start.

Jeez anarchy, you have a pretty warped mindset. You seem to think that most people are mindless sheep who will be brainwashed by evil foreigners if they are given the chance.
Paranoia, mistrust, xenophobia and patronising will not make for a happy life.
When I chip in for a "Free Tibet" collection I do not become a 'financier' whose interests the Tibetan people are now serving. If you prefer domestic crooks to outside philanthropists then that's your concern - but don't tell me that 99% of 'other' people are stupid, because you have already set the bar pretty low.

My mindset is just fine, what makes it different from yours is that i'm ready to question everything and i do not think the way i am told to.

Most people are mindless sheep, let me give you a rough example:
yanks elected George Bush to lead them... Two consecutive times... If you elect a leader which public appearances screams "stupid and incompetent" you are a mindless sheep. Same goes with current candidates in republican party, big businesses have put so many stupid, easily to control people there, that they can't find anyone smart to candidate so now we have hilarious public appearances of those candidates now. Simplified and rough example but it serves its purpose.

I guess than that mindless belief in happy world in which everything is fine and anyone who thinks outside the box is paranoid conspiracy theorist will make our lives just peachy?

Do not give me that c**p on outside philanthropist, i am living with the consequences of that philanthropy every day and your "picket fences" attitude just goes to show that 99% of people are if not stupid than definitely ignorant or in denial. As for setting the bar too low, would that bar be higher if i was blind to everything that's happening around me like you are? Thanks, but if that's the criteria i would rather be stupid than intelligent in your way...

Promising tax cuts or whatever and not being able to deliver them is an entirely different thing than promising general welfare and instead creating a 1984 once elected.
If the majority of people do not think for themselves as you claim, how comes the USSR or China or islamistic terrorists in all the decades haven't simply funded a party to deal with their own interests in some western countries?
Getting a party elected with some secret agenda that they only reveal after an election is impossible.

What about promising industry development and than intentional sale of public companies to shady characters after which country has no industry and exist only as a market in economic flows?
Why didn't they? You would crush them, you would invent some witch hunt like McCarthyism and find a reason to trial them for treason or something like it. Besides they do not own the media and therefore can't make their message get into brains of the brainless ones.

No I don't agree with a general statement that rich people are more likely to get away with crimes than poor people. The real life is way more complicated than this simple sentence.
And even if that was the case, it'd be still irrelevant, because a constitutional court doesn't deal with it in the first place.
And I know they're not influenced by government's interest, because then they'd hardly remove and ban actions done by a government, no?

Real life is exactly that simple, momentarily OJ comes to mind, but if you wish i can google a dozen cases of how rich people get away with things. And how many people were arrested and prosecuted about enron and vaporizing 401k funds, what time are the ones that are prosecuted serving.
Who nominates the judges of constitutional court?
An here's one for ya to think about.
http://www.freefunlinks.com/wp-cont...-mortage-ceo-steals-3billion-gets-3-years.jpg

Are 99% sheeple ? well maybe more like 98% I think that much is obvious, regardless of whos brainwashing them although it has to be said the Western art of media propaganda and brainwashing is done with such finesse and subtlety is has become an art form, these "evil" foreigners indeed exist and in Russia were responsible for the fall of the Tzars and has been well remembered in Russian educated circles. I was surprised to be told this by a Russian friend many many years ago to which at the time I must admit I scoffed but it turns out to be true.

Russia are very wary of any foriegn interferrence and with that track record you can hardly blame them, Paranoia, mistrust ? nope just real facts but you can bet that leads to xenophobia.

Id say 98% of people are stupid, a perfect example I shall give because I profited directly from this even tho I contacted many organisations and even Embassies when I found out the full story, regardless of evidence I provided most did not even believe me, nothing has ever been done and continues to this day. This border trade scam business turns over MILLIONS a year for Mafia and corrupt officials and aids the intended recipients nothing.

I am not as eloquent in English as i would like to be and i do have problems putting my thoughts here, so i am forced to simplify my posts all the time and many things get lost in translation. But this is the point i am trying to make

 

[DeletedUser]

What about promising industry development and than intentional sale of public companies to shady characters after which country has no industry and exist only as a market in economic flows?
Why didn't they? You would crush them, you would invent some witch hunt like McCarthyism and find a reason to trial them for treason or something like it. Besides they do not own the media and therefore can't make their message get into brains of the brainless ones.

I've never seen anything like a with hunt against a party. The closest thing that I've seen is a ban request for a party, that has shady intentions, which however was denied by a constitutional court in fact.
RT is a perfect example of a pro-Russian channel, that is broadcasting world-wide and gaining viewers. They may not own other media, but actually neither are other parties or governments, except in Italy, Russia and probably all dictatorships.

Real life is exactly that simple, momentarily OJ comes to mind, but if you wish i can google a dozen cases of how rich people get away with things. And how many people were arrested and prosecuted about enron and vaporizing 401k funds, what time are the ones that are prosecuted serving.
Who nominates the judges of constitutional court?
An here's one for ya to think about.
http://www.freefunlinks.com/wp-cont...-mortage-ceo-steals-3billion-gets-3-years.jpg

Rich people can afford more and better lawyers. It doesn't always have to be a judge's fault.
But then again, that's absolutely irrelevant. A constitutional court will not ever deal with rich people or poor people's crimes, but with the constitution. If you think some court made a biased or outright wrong decision or any passed law by the government is injust, any average Joe can go to a constitutional court and claim that case to be inspected. And if it is a valid case, it is dealt with accordingly.

EDIT: And if you want to bring forth a comparison of rich-vs.-poor-people-sentences, then at least pick an example where it boils down to rich and poor. In the case you posted, you compare two different crimes, fraud and robbery. There may be more differences, that are not as easily identified (different laws in different states, previous convictions or whatever)

 

[DeletedUser]

I've never seen anything like a with hunt against a party. The closest thing that I've seen is a ban request for a party, that has shady intentions, which however was denied by a constitutional court in fact.
RT is a perfect example of a pro-Russian channel, that is broadcasting world-wide and gaining viewers. They may not own other media, but actually neither are other parties or governments, except in Italy, Russia and probably all dictatorships.

You didn't saw that in US because there is no one to hunt there. But than again i din't asked that and this doesn't answer a single thing from part of my post that you quoted.

On the other part of your post, don't be so fast in dismissing Russia as a dictatorship, and US as a democracy, mainly its all the same, only different mechanisms are used.

Rich people can afford more and better lawyers. It doesn't always have to be a judge's fault.
But then again, that's absolutely irrelevant. A constitutional court will not ever deal with rich people or poor people's crimes, but with the constitution. If you think some court made a biased or outright wrong decision or any passed law by the government is injust, any average Joe can go to a constitutional court and claim that case to be inspected. And if it is a valid case, it is dealt with accordingly.

I don't care who is to blame, system obviously doesn't work properly if judges aren't capable of making an just decision based solely on the deed that was done. And this still doesn't answer why most of the people from enron were not prosecuted, and why 401k disappeared and no one is to blame, the ones who were prosecuted got ridiculously small jail time.

Constitutional court deals with interpretation of constitution, and they can interpret it to their liking. And again, who chooses the judges of constitutional court?

 

[DeletedUser28032]

If we're going for a rich versus poor argument the easiest one that i can think of is the expense scandal that happened here in the UK.
Basically a large number of politicians were claiming expenses for things like second homes they didn't own, having their private moats (no i am not kidding) cleaned out and buying pornographic films all of which comes out of the tax payers pocket. Now this is all essentially fraud, however with the exception of around two of them they all got away with simply paying back the money, now if i was to commit fraud not only would i have to pay back the money (in fact it would probably be seized) i would also be facing a prison sentence. So there you have it an example of inequality within the justice system.

 

[DeletedUser]

Anarchy, it's very easy to win an argument if you change the topic, but it's not an honest tactic...

There's your cookie.

 

[DeletedUser]

Anarchy, it's very easy to win an argument if you change the topic, but it's not an honest tactic...

There's your cookie.

I just go where debate leads me hell.

 

[DeletedUser]

On the other part of your post, don't be so fast in dismissing Russia as a dictatorship, and US as a democracy, mainly its all the same, only different mechanisms are used.

Back on-topic, there was also a disputed US election where Dubya got the nod over Gore, in spite of getting a smaller share of the popular vote. There was some sharp practice there and people also came out on the streets to demonstrate. However, they were not intimidated by riot-police and their leaders and organisers were not arrested or victimised, so I don't see the political systems of those 2 countries as essentially the same.
Russia is not a dictatorship - more an oligarchy with a democratic veneer. But, still, it's moving in the right direction, and the fact that the state is no longer prepared or able to just baton charge and arrest its critics peremptorily is a promising development.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Think this debate is about done Anachy...

As to the comment of the rich and poor having the same chance in court ... all i can say is OMG grow up ... sure the occasional one gets put away but the norm is they get away with it.. braetwalda just gave a perfect example.

As for RT ? well I see plenty of anti Russian Gov clips on it at the moment thank you want me to link you to a few ?.. I think this thread has shown how ignorant of the world people are and theres obviously a % of the 98 here, I also happen to watch Al Jazeer the realnews.com, bloomberg, CBS, CBC, alex jones,NTN24,Blue Ocean Network The BBC, Reuters and a host of others and read plenty of credible, non credible, state and non state media. The point is to get as much diverse information and opinions and sides as possible, only then can you make a judgement call ... Most sit on one channel or media outlet and the media know it and thats how sheeple conditioning prevails.

PS happy xmas HS knew youd be back at some point hehe.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Back on-topic, there was also a disputed US election where Dubya got the nod over Gore, in spite of getting a smaller share of the popular vote. There was some sharp practice there and people also came out on the streets to demonstrate. However, they were not intimidated by riot-police and their leaders and organisers were not arrested or victimised, so I don't see the political systems of those 2 countries as essentially the same.
Russia is not a dictatorship - more an oligarchy with a democratic veneer. But, still, it's moving in the right direction, and the fact that the state is no longer prepared or able to just baton charge and arrest its critics peremptorily is a promising development.

Hmmm talking of riot police the US and people being victimised re government demonstrations its just about there now Eli, of late watching the treatment of citizens protesting such as on wall street etc it seems its all but going on already in mainstreet so its only a mater of time when its employed politically.

As for oligarchy change the name to financial muscle and it matters not which country you are talking about does it ?

 

[DeletedUser]

Back on-topic, there was also a disputed US election where Dubya got the nod over Gore, in spite of getting a smaller share of the popular vote. There was some sharp practice there and people also came out on the streets to demonstrate. However, they were not intimidated by riot-police and their leaders and organisers were not arrested or victimised, so I don't see the political systems of those 2 countries as essentially the same.
Russia is not a dictatorship - more an oligarchy with a democratic veneer. But, still, it's moving in the right direction, and the fact that the state is no longer prepared or able to just baton charge and arrest its critics peremptorily is a promising development.

I know few things about that case, tell me when we draw the line what happened? Bush got presidential spot despite a lot of election irregularities. So much for democracy... We can go on and on about lack of democratic practice and influence of financial lobby on US government but than Hell would probably kill me on spot for going offtopic
As for arrests and intimidating people vic posted perfect example - treatment of the occupy wall street movement.

 

[DeletedUser]

You didn't saw that in US because there is no one to hunt there. But than again i din't asked that and this doesn't answer a single thing from part of my post that you quoted.

On the other part of your post, don't be so fast in dismissing Russia as a dictatorship, and US as a democracy, mainly its all the same, only different mechanisms are used.

You made up facts of imaginary witch hunts and I replied with no witch hunts to be observed.
As for your first sentence there, I didn't bother to adress it, because a) it gets offtopic and b) Selling public companies is a reasonable mean to improve a country's development. Mail, telephone, garbage disposal etc. that are run by a country are often put out on the market to decrease costs and turn it into a profitable company.
I never claimed Russia to be a dictatorship nor the US democracy as a perfect system.

I don't care who is to blame, system obviously doesn't work properly if judges aren't capable of making an just decision based solely on the deed that was done.

If you know a better system than courts and judges, let the world know.

Constitutional court deals with interpretation of constitution, and they can interpret it to their liking. And again, who chooses the judges of constitutional court?

No, they cannot interpret the constitution to their liking.
It depends on the country, but those judges are nominated usually by representatives of the Legislature

 

[DeletedUser]

You made up facts of imaginary witch hunts and I replied with no witch hunts to be observed.
As for your first sentence there, I didn't bother to adress it, because a) it gets offtopic and b) Selling public companies is a reasonable mean to improve a country's development. Mail, telephone, garbage disposal etc. that are run by a country are often put out on the market to decrease costs and turn it into a profitable company.
I never claimed Russia to be a dictatorship nor the US democracy as a perfect system.

Woooooooo nice and drunk today but i'll try to answer all of this.

Nothing to observe in your immediate surroundings, therefore it doesn't exist ay?
a) half of this thread goes offtopic it didn't bother anyone so far
b) theoretically yes, practically no. privatization is extremely easy to exploit, plenty of examples worldwide, probably a few in the US too.

If you know a better system than courts and judges, let the world know.

Courts and judges not influenced by money? Kind of utopia i know but your system doesn't go a step beyond some dictator regimes you spit on, only difference is that someone else is in role of a dictator..

And that question about Enron and 401k still stands...

No, they cannot interpret the constitution to their liking.
It depends on the country, but those judges are nominated usually by representatives of the Legislature

Yes they can.
For example?

 

[DeletedUser]

An example for Anarchy:
A US judge determined that the Government can't put graphic warning labels on cigarettes packages because that would infringe on the tobacco companies' right to free speech.

I had a link to this... but the site doesn't have it any more.

 

[DeletedUser]

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/s...rette-companies-to-run-graphic-warning-labels

Interesting indeed...

 

[DeletedUser]

Nothing to observe in your immediate surroundings, therefore it doesn't exist ay?
a) half of this thread goes offtopic it didn't bother anyone so far
b) theoretically yes, practically no. privatization is extremely easy to exploit, plenty of examples worldwide, probably a few in the US too.

You could bring this discussion a lot further, if you simply point out an actual case of a witch hunt against parties, instead of claiming hypothetical ones.
Certainly, privatization has its problems, that lie within capitalism and exploiting workforce. But following the supply and demand model, as far as I can tell, is way better than command structure though. When I go by train these days, they are more comfortable, have friendlier personnel, less wait-times at stations etc. than back then, when it was run administratively. The same improvements apply to other companies.

Courts and judges not influenced by money? Kind of utopia i know but your system doesn't go a step beyond some dictator regimes you spit on, only difference is that someone else is in role of a dictator..

And that question about Enron and 401k still stands...

Corruption is a problem in a system with courts/judges, but it's not prevalent.
I don't know anything about the Enron case, but since there isn't a poor-person case to compare it with, it's not adding much to a rich-poor-comparison, is it?

Yes they can.
For example?

Another example of a constitutional court working in favour of the constitution and not in favour of the government:
4 convicted criminals charged against a law of preventive detention, that (in case of two of them) would held them captive for more than 10 years, which was the maximum detention there was at the time of trial. The other two were sentenced to preventive detention after the actual trial for their deeds.
The judges decided the law to be unconstitutional and not only went directly against the government, but supported criminals instead.

 

[DeletedUser]

You could bring this discussion a lot further, if you simply point out an actual case of a witch hunt against parties, instead of claiming hypothetical ones.
Certainly, privatization has its problems, that lie within capitalism and exploiting workforce. But following the supply and demand model, as far as I can tell, is way better than command structure though. When I go by train these days, they are more comfortable, have friendlier personnel, less wait-times at stations etc. than back then, when it was run administratively. The same improvements apply to other companies.

Why limit yourself to parties? If you want undemocratic principles on group or movement i will gladly dig up few examples.
That lies within corruption and nature of capitalism that knows no limits and when capitalist grow to a certain measure it starts to affect government and laws itself(by changing them or getting no-need-to-follow-the-law card).
That goes for professionally conducted privatizations, i have loads of examples here about once very successful companies gone under after privatizations, and others are slave driving factories + i heard that some privatizations in US didn't went very well, mainly electric sector, forgot about details.

Corruption is a problem in a system with courts/judges, but it's not prevalent.
I don't know anything about the Enron case, but since there isn't a poor-person case to compare it with, it's not adding much to a rich-poor-comparison, is it?

So you say, i wouldn't agree.
No poor persons to compare it with? How about thousands of people that lost their savings in enron savings scheme? and anyway enron was there to illustrate how courts doesn't treat everyone equally.

Another example of a constitutional court working in favour of the constitution and not in favour of the government:
4 convicted criminals charged against a law of preventive detention, that (in case of two of them) would held them captive for more than 10 years, which was the maximum detention there was at the time of trial. The other two were sentenced to preventive detention after the actual trial for their deeds.
The judges decided the law to be unconstitutional and not only went directly against the government, but supported criminals instead.

You had a law that wouldn't put to shame biggest dictators in the world. Fact that constitutional court shows a little sense now and then doesn't say much and shouldn't surprise anyone, at least in cases where is no interests of big money involved.
Btw i see that preventive detention practice still works in guantanamo, truly a democratic heritage.

Let's not forget that not long ago the richest man in the world fell into the hands of his own people, was pistol whipped, knifed & shot in the head. I think every head of state probably sat up on hearing that and may be one reason why Putin is treading cautiously on the issue of the demonstrations. Democracy will not come overnight to Russia, but inch-by-inch the people are fighting for it and I wish them well.

Someone knifed and shot Gates?
Wouldn't say he is overly cautious, he said elections are realistic, next time they will install cameras and promised 10 billions to EU with message to bug off from Russian internal affairs.

Democracy is an illusion, and people in their stupidity are fighting for new set of thieves to get into control of country, simple as that, but while we are on the subject what is an example of democratic country you wish for russians?

 

[DeletedUser16008]

We have MF Global going on right now with Corzine ... google it and expect the scumbag to get off

 

[DeletedUser]

Let's not forget that not long ago the richest man in the world fell into the hands of his own people, was pistol whipped, knifed & shot in the head. I think every head of state probably sat up on hearing that and may be one reason why Putin is treading cautiously on the issue of the demonstrations. Democracy will not come overnight to Russia, but inch-by-inch the people are fighting for it and I wish them well.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why limit yourself to parties? If you want undemocratic principles on group or movement i will gladly dig up few examples.

So can I. And I limit myself to parties, because it was the topic you brought up and that you and me have addressed the whole time.

That lies within corruption and nature of capitalism that knows no limits and when capitalist grow to a certain measure it starts to affect government and laws itself(by changing them or getting no-need-to-follow-the-law card).
That goes for professionally conducted privatizations, i have loads of examples here about once very successful companies gone under after privatizations, and others are slave driving factories + i heard that some privatizations in US didn't went very well, mainly electric sector, forgot about details.

There are cartel offices, trade unions etc. to control companies, the market and protect the workers, so it doesn't get out of hand. While there are problems with unemployment or low-income-jobs, the system is by far better than a command economy with faked full employment and generally a vastly lower living standard.
Don't know much about the electric sector in the US. It works fine here, although the major companies are constantly criticized and under close watch of the cartel office, we have dozens of minor companies, that gain a lot of new customers especially after the Fukushima incident, when more people realized, it's better to rely on non-nuclear power.

So you say, i wouldn't agree.
No poor persons to compare it with? How about thousands of people that lost their savings in enron savings scheme? and anyway enron was there to illustrate how courts doesn't treat everyone equally.

Again, to illustrate how courts don't treat everyone equal, you need:

Case A:
- crime x
- law y
- rich person accused

Case B:
- crime x (the very same as case A)
- law y (the very same as case A)
- poor person accused

It's vitally important that you compare the very same crime to which the very same law is applied. There's no use to compare a poor guy's murder in India in 1927 with a rich guy's rape in Australia in 2010. The only variable has to be the income/wealth of the accused person. It also doesn't have to be the same court or judge, because we can assume that to be independent and equal as long the applied law remains constant.
Obviously you need to have 2 cases. Find a case of fraud (or whatever Enron was charged with) with a poor person accused and you can make a point.


EDIT: never underestimate jerks *sighs*. Of course providing links or at least names instead of totally random anonymous cases, is a requirement, as well.

You had a law that wouldn't put to shame biggest dictators in the world. Fact that constitutional court shows a little sense now and then doesn't say much and shouldn't surprise anyone, at least in cases where is no interests of big money involved.
Btw i see that preventive detention practice still works in guantanamo, truly a democratic heritage.

That constitutional court ruled 10 times this year something unconstitutional. It wasn't just an occasional good decision. I just picked that case because it was the most popular.
Surely preventive detention works well in Guantanamo, even better with the new National Defense Authorization Act, if Obama signs it. As I said before, the US don't have a perfect democracy, and if that law goes alive I wouldn't hesitate to say the US are screwed a lot more than they are now. I'm glad our constitution forbids detention without trials for anyone, torture and the like.