Russian Websites Critical of Elections Targeted In DDoS Attack 156
theshowmecanuck submits this news from Russia, where "Websites which exposed violations in Russia's parliamentary elections were inaccessible Sunday in a hacking attack they said was aimed at preventing them revealing the extent of election day fraud." Further, says the linked article, "Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, whose United Russia party is expected to win Sunday's polls but with a reduced majority, has denounced non-governmental organisations like Golos, comparing them to the disciple Judas who betrayed Jesus. Russia has seen an upsurge in Internet penetration since the last elections in 2007, and analysts have said the explosion of critical material on the web poses one of the biggest challenges to United Russia's grip on power."
It did not help (Score:5, Informative)
"United Russia", the party of Putin has dropped from 64% of the votes to 48.5%.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Coverage of election results on BBC [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, this is the bigger news. Putin lost majority. In a perfect democracy, he would be forced to form a coalition with one of the other parties. Of course, most representative systems are rigged in favor of the big parties, and Russia is no exception (with a 7% limit). He will have much more than 48.5% in the duma.
Re: (Score:3)
Allegedly there was still ballot fraud in United Russia's favor, or so at least one opposition source has claimed, so UR's popularity might be a decent bit smaller.
Re:It did not help (Score:5, Informative)
Don't go by "allegedly", see for yourself [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Links to a bunch of Youtube videos and a link back to Slashdot that doesn't go anywhere besides the front page.
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize, the link to Slashdot is a mispaste.
For the rest of them, what do you think the videos are for? They all document various violations by people observing them first hand.
Re: (Score:2)
The "allegations of fraud" started several months before the elections.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree, no matter how you stretch it, it's still not fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
also because of the way the voting process is done.. the officials make vote selling possible(you can mark your vote in clear view). also patients in hospitals etc are used to vote whatever the staff wants - being russia the staff might think that it's even legit!
Re:It did not help (Score:5, Interesting)
I think there may be a bit of a problem [imgur.com] with the electronic counting system that they've been using (these are the stats for Rostov - add up the percentages...).
On the other hand, everything's as planned [twimg.com] in Chechnya.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rows on the graph are party names. One person can only vote for one party in Russia, it's not a ranked system. So, yes, it is mutually exclusive.
As many people have remarked, it basically looks like they took the raw numbers, then added 30% to United Russia (it's the top one).
Not so fast (Score:2)
This Damn Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
According to exit polls.
A popular nationalistic poet Emelin formulated it quite precisely, yet obscenely:
Re:It did not help (Score:4, Insightful)
You're kidding right? I don't know about UK politics but in the US both parties are controlled by the same people. We get to choose between tweedle dee and tweedle dum.
Re:It did not help (Score:4, Insightful)
... in the US both parties are controlled by the same people.
You're exaggerating or kidding, right? They aren't controlled by the same people. Those different people do have the same motivations, though, so the resulting behaviors are often identical. Your declaration would have been accurate enough if you'd said, "controlled by people who behave the same", but you didn't say that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even within the two parties there are wide differences of opinion. The two US parties would be considered in most parliamentary systems to be stable permanent coalitions. The two parties cover so much ideological ground they are effectively four or five parties in terms of Westminster styled political systems.
Re:It did not help (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't say "agendas". I wasn't referring to what they believe but rather how they go about achieving goals... in other words, their behavior. I was also referring to the people who control the parties, not so much the rank and file.
To distill my point further: people at the pinnacle of hierarchies tend to all behave the same - unethically - regardless what the name is on the clubhouse or what its purpose is. Yes, there are exceptions, but not many. Political parties are never an exception.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see it. Frankly what you're talking about is just smoke and mirrors designed to keep the people divided while the country is raped. Black against white, christian against atheist, and so on. Divide and conquer. I didn't say that the parties were the same, I said the people in control of those parties are the same people, the people who really run the country. Look at our current President. While I disagree with some of the things he wanted to do, I did have some hope that at least some of the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with your assessment. Read my replies to others; it finally dawned on me that you probably weren't talking about people who had official roles in both/all parties but rather puppeteers that didn't. I don't disagree those people exist.
I rooted for Kucinich when he pushed for impeachment; I rooted for him again when he tried to preserve single-payer health care. I was mad when he caved and voted for the final bill, but I knew he was up against people who can bribe their marionettes with th
Re: (Score:2)
I won't argue there are puppeteers involved who are common to both. I wasn't widening the view in my comment to include them, but perhaps they are who the GP was referring. I can't decide who's worse, them or the people willing to do their bidding with full knowledge of the ramifications.
No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serious. (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't post any "In Soviet Russia ..." jokes here, please. This submission is strictly for serious discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
Given how well the communists are doing in the election Soviet Russia may be a reality again in a few years.
Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's one more choice than Americans have got.
Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (Score:5, Insightful)
Under Capitalism, man oppresses man. Under Communism, it's exactly the opposite.
- Woody Allen
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. That's brilliant.
Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (Score:5, Informative)
A significant proportion of communist vote on these elections is, effectively, protest vote against United Russia. We used to have "none of the above" on the ballot ages ago, it was scrapped under Putin. Then people started to ignore elections altogether, in hopes that, if enough do, they don't get the voter turnout needed to elect anyone - the government has responded by removing the requirement for minimum voter turnout. So right now the only way to vote against the party in power is to vote for some other party, and for preference many people vote for the second biggest one to maximize the effect.
Re: (Score:2)
So right now the only way to vote against the party in power is to vote for some other party, and for preference many people vote for the second biggest one to maximize the effect.
I could follow you right up to there. Then you lost me. Are you talking about Russia or about the USA here?
Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (Score:4, Informative)
I know it sounds eerily familiar to you Americans. Difference is, your parties juggle a few percent back and forth. In our case, it was the very real difference between having United Russia get 66% and a constitutional majority (Russian constitution can be amended by 2/3 of both upper and lower house of the parliament - they've already used it to extend presidential term to 6 years), or having it get 50%, even if that means that commies also get 25%. At least, with commies there, they'll be at each other's throats most of the time, which can be subverted from within the parties (like Tea Party did to Republicans).
It's far from perfect, but it's a step ahead from what we had before, and it's a step that could actually be made.
Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (Score:5, Informative)
Sure beats a single-party one. And it's a realistic, achievable goal at this stage.
Besides, the point of this exercise is to make a break from the past 12 years and to force the votes to actually be counted in a way that is prominently visible. A huge staple of United Russia's propaganda is that "everyone is for us" - basically, an appeal to citizens to vote same as everyone else. But this hinges on them actually having that popular support. Every person that didn't vote for them on this election will bring another person who won't on the next one.
Also, strange as it may sound, commies are actually one of the saner parties in this election. Alternatives include e.g. the guy who became famous by saying things like "Russian soldiers shall wash their boots in the Indian ocean".
Re: (Score:2)
He's anti-Semitic? With a family name of Edelstein at birth (he changed it to his mother's family name at 18), that would be quite a feat.
Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sites are mostly up (Score:4, Informative)
Most of the websites are up by now. And probably some of the DDoS attacks can be explained by surge in the number of viewers.
Well, the good news is that Putin's party has lost constitutional majority in the Parliament (constitutional majority is required to be able to modify some parts of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The bad news is that they still get majority in the parliament. And Internet has been instrumental in that - it's about the only remaining independent source of information in Russia.
The Russian Internet meme "United Russia is the party of crooks and thieves" got so popular that it has even jumped into official United Russia propaganda.
no Majority (Score:1)
CNN source [cnn.com]
Re:no Majority (Score:5, Interesting)
You want to hear something interesting? The United Nations uses exit polls to judge the fairness of elections worldwide. If the "official" results differ from the exit polls substantially, it cannot be certified as a fair election.
In the US, official results have been deviating from exit polls to a greater extent in every election starting in 2000. Of course, we are told that this just means that exit polling just isn't that good.
You decide.
Re:no Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
In a democratic society with a long-standing culture of openness and freedom, most people don't hide their political beliefs, and will happily tell you which way they had voted. If people are willing to lie in exit polls in sufficient numbers that it skews the result, it indicates that something's very wrong with democracy in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is precisely my point. If you have people being pressured to vote a certain way, on a scale sufficiently large to be noticed, it means that your democracy is flawed, and you don't have a free society.
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly I don't know how exit polls work in other countries, but when the poll relies solely on people telling the truth as to which party they voted for, they really aren't that great.
Why is that? What motive is there to lie? The poll itself depends on the voter to tell the truth about who he wants in office too.
mafia party (Score:5, Interesting)
United Russia is a mafia party, literally, it's full of mafia bosses, it's a criminal syndicate that took over the country and destroyed the democracy in its infancy, plunged the country into the age of corruption.
Of-course it doesn't help that Russia has too many people that are made dependent upon the government for survival, that's how a criminal party takes hold and doesn't let go - the bosses literally gather people in the meetings and tell them that they will dole out money based on voting participation and the voting outcome, they also want people to prove their voting record (illegally obviously), the votes are bought and voters are intimidated.
US and the rest should take notice - once most of your businesses are just a few large ones, and the small/medium sized businesses disappear and are constantly under pressure to pay huge 'fines'/bribes to local 'politicians' and often the businesses are destroyed - illegally taken over with police force from their owners and just handed over to local mafia/United Russia party bosses, then you build a huge dependent class of people, who don't have jobs, they can't have jobs because the largest (oil/gas/metal/wood/whatever raw material) companies only need so many workers and the service sector is all monopolized.
Without a thriving middle class (and I mean BUSINESS class) the economy only allows 3 classes of people: bottom dolers, top mafia bosses and owners and monopolists in every business sector, very few monopolists that run every business.
Then you the country can't get out of this predicament - the people are poor and they don't know how NOT to be poor anymore, their only way of living depends on being fully subsidized by the government and they can't afford any change of government and any instability carries a promise of hunger.
Of-course Russia still has some protesters from the middle class and students, but right now it seems to be irrelevant, the special forces there don't hesitate to apply massive amounts of damage to the protesters. Beating somebody and even killing them is really not a big deal - people who live off the dole are really just insects in a system like that.
That's why you don't want socialism or communism or totalitarianism or dictatorship or any kind. You want many independent individual capable of taking care of themselves and by proxy of the economy by doing creative stuff, providing products and jobs and investment opportunities. But a large number of people like that not only improve the economy, but they are too independent to be held in shackles of oppression, they don't want a large parasite mafia class above them taking everything from them and deciding for them what kind of a country they will live in.
Re:mafia party (Score:5, Interesting)
Dude, Russia is capitalistic to the extreme. Socialism had died in Russia in 1993.
"United Russia" is the end result of a capitalistic society without democratic checks and balances. It turns out that pure capitalism soon becomes indistinguishable from feudalism.
That's quite easy to understand, because giving business the ability to influence the government creates a feedback loop and pretty soon government becomes indistinguishable from business. Alternatively, giving business power to weaken the government results in business _becoming_ the government.
Re:mafia party (Score:5, Informative)
Capitalism is just a word, which has nothing to do with the political system. It's not capitalism that turned into this authoritarian system, it's literally the fact that various former KGB and mafia bosses got together and used all sorts of violence in order to prevent any competition in the political arena. Khodorkovskiy is in jail not because of 'capitalism', he is in jail because a criminal is at the helm of the government and he put him there.
Here is an example of 'carousel' [youtube.com] - the people are instructed that they will be voting in 16 different schools (these are the same people), they are explicitly told who to vote for (United Russia obviously) and how to behave, which tables to approach, what to say to any authorities if they are questioned, etc.
The guy who shot this video asked if it makes sense to join the Party and he is told: obviously if you join it, you get material benefits, money whatever.
Then the video shows scenes of this same guy voting in multiple locations, by 5:30 it says: I voted 12 times already, almost done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
again, what does 'capitalism' have to do with the political system?
capitalism is an economic model - you overproduce, under-consume, use the savings as an investment capital.
Re:mafia party (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me quote you:
"That's why you don't want socialism or communism or totalitarianism or dictatorship or any kind"
If capitalism is just an economic model then why do you have problems with socialism which is also just an economic model?
Re: (Score:1)
I don't need to repeat the same thing twice, that's what hyperlinks [slashdot.org] are for.
Re:mafia party (Score:5, Informative)
No, he made a point, and you ignored him or you don't understand it.
Unfettered capitalism has just as much capacity for totalitarianism as communism. Capitalism, left to its own devices, naturally results in a few large players, who, if allowed to, will subvert and take over the government, simply buy it off. Plutocracy. This is why you need a strong government with strong regulatory powers to keep the marketplace fair by preventing the largest players from performing inevitable abuse, and breaking them up if necessary.
Your problem is that you only understand one narrative: the narrative of oppression from communism, where the government IS big business. That is not the only way oppression can form or function. The government can be the mafia, which you understand. But an uncontrolled corporate sphere can also function like a mafia, and it can simply turn a weak government into its puppet. This is what you see forming in the USA. You don't seem to understand that.
You NEED a strong central government, and you need a healthy marketplace of corporations kept in check. If you weaken the government, the power vacuum is simply filled by the largest corporations, who simply buy the government. Do you understand?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he made a point, and you ignored him or you don't understand it.
- no, I directed him at my other comment in this same thread that addresses that exact question. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word 'hyperlink'.
Unfettered capitalism has just as much capacity for totalitarianism as communism.
- capitalism is an economic system that can exist within different political systems, what you don't understand is that capitalism is not itself a political system.
Combined with a political system (as I explained in this thread and this is an unfortunate repetition) that is able to
Re: (Score:2)
capitalism is an economic system that can exist within different political systems, what you don't understand is that capitalism is not itself a political system. ... When a company like BP has so much money and we have an ELECTION system that requires money and can take it from Corporations -- that means a lot of Judges and Politicians OWE BP. Your semantic point doesn't change the reality of the situation; Capitalism without restraint BECOMES the government.
Haiti, Mexico, Honduras and many other totalita
Re: (Score:2)
Before I leave here, big powerful government is what people with money want to buy.
Small insignificant government that doesn't have authority to make winners and losers in the market, to decide on who gets the bail out and who doesn't, gov't that can't print money and dole out success/failure - this is not what people with money want to buy, capitalists or otherwise.
Big, powerful government is the root of all evil that human societies have to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
then you have no understanding of history
human history did not start with the russian revolution in 1917. you seem to have only one reference point by which autocracy exists
small hint: the bolsheviks and the labor movements of the period were fighting SOMETHING. what was it they were fighting? of course, their ideology recreated the something they were fighting, but you don't seem to be aware of what that preceding something is. your understanding of history is lacking
this is what you get with a weak govern
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with CircleTimesSquare on this .... "Big Government" is a useless term.
What you meant to say is "strong centralized government" -- which should be understood independent on how much money is spent, or how many people hired to work for government.
We have a military and about 1 million people working in organizations like; TSA, NSA, HMS, CIA, etc. I think we could SHRINK that part.
We also have bureaucrats who do reports on economics. We have the FDA, EPA, CDC -- all necessary functions if they weren't cor
Re: (Score:2)
I think the BEST example of "profits before people" is the Irish Potato famine.
All tyrannies can be chalked up to; "Unresponsive to the common good of the people."
Re: (Score:2)
next time try thinking instead of dictating (ironically enough ;-)
you didn't respond, you just performed the perfect kneejerk. i supposed that is as close as i will get to an admission from you that i've actually made a impression on your closed mind on the subject
so be it
Re: (Score:2)
Can we MOD this up to 11 please?
You nailed it quite succinctly. The COMPLAINTS about our systems are not necessarily "anti-capitalism" -- they are anti-corruption. And as you point out, corruption is inevitable if you don't make RULES that force the market to remain open.
The reason the OWS protests are in front of Wall Street and not the Government -- is that they recognize that Hank Paulson allows Obama to be President -- not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
you oppose the idea that there can be sources of tyranny outside of the government. so you are a closed minded fool. a shame, we have enough useless braindead partisans in this world. please try thinking again at some point in your life, right now, you are a useless repeater
Re: (Score:2)
Well obviously, because capitalism in itself does not require purity of any kind.
There has to be a political model built to ensure that the economic model stays in its place and does not start impeding the individual freedoms. Unfortunately we do not have a solution that is able to last for a very extended period of time (more than a few generations) yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with american capitalism is that government influence is a commodity.
Re: (Score:3)
"Capitalism is just a word, which has nothing to do with the political system"
Sure. So is socialism.
"Here is an example of 'carousel' [youtube.com] - the people are instructed that they will be voting in 16 different schools (these are the same people), they are explicitly told who to vote for (United Russia obviously) and how to behave, which tables to approach, what to say to any authorities if they are questioned, etc."
"United Russia" just uses its "market power" to influence election results. And they a
Re: (Score:3)
"it ends being an economic model and becomes a political system once it is forced upon unwilling participants."
And this is different from capitalism exactly how?
"Capitalism is not forced upon people top down, because capitalism makes sense as it is the most natural system; socialism is forced upon people through government power."
Sure. In capitalism you are not forced to work - you are not forced to breathe or eat either. Oh, and also business is not forced to obey small nuisances like the so called 'laws'
Re: (Score:2)
"it ends being an economic model and becomes a political system once it is forced upon unwilling participants."
And this is different from capitalism exactly how?
You never heard of the communes in the USA? Under a capitalist system one can get together with some like minded fellows and use the capitalist system to purchase a pocket of communism within it. Notice that a communist system does not allow this; there is no way to work within a communist system to purchase your own pocket of capitalism.n Just read Moore's Utopia and see what happens to Utopians who try to create private property. Thus the GP's statement that communism must be forced upon people while
Re: (Score:2)
"there is no way to work within a communist system to purchase your own pocket of capitalism"
I'm not talking about communism (which is political system) but about socialism (which is socio-economical system). Nobody is holding you from creating your own currency in, say, socialistic Sweden and setting up your very own pocket of unrestricted capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is the intermediary step on the way to communism wherein a single party runs the show with no opposition tolerated. Both are integrated political-economic systems. But that's a different fine point to haggle over. Meanwhile, no, Sweden is no socialist. It is a social democracy. The Swedish state does not own all the means of production and property. They just have huge social welfare systems. A better thing to consider is whether you could have pooled resources together with your friends in, say,
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Soviet-style socialism was thought to be intermediary step to communism. But all Soviet-style planned economies have failed quite spectacularly. Sweden is 'socialist' in the sense that it has cradle-to-grave welfare system (which includes social security, healthcare, education, etc.). But OK, I won't argue
"A better thing to consider is whether you could have pooled resources together with your friends in, say, the 1970's Soviet Union and create a pocket of capitalism."
Even during Stalin era USSR
Re: (Score:2)
"Capitalism + free market is an economic model that increases the wealth of all people"
That's definitely not true. There are tons of capitalistic societies that are working on increasing wealth of top ruling people. A lot of countries in South America come to mind.
Capitalism with sufficient oversight _can_ be made to work on increasing wealth of most people, but it definitely doesn't happen automagically.
Re: (Score:2)
"Capitalism, if you want, is 'forced' upon people by nature of being alive on this planet."
So is socialism in socialistic states - it's not forced on anyone, it just is. So your point is?
"Capitalism is your work minus your consumption, whatever is left (under-consumption or overproduction) is what you call 'savings' and you can then reinvest it to make more profit. For example you can hire help to do what you do or you can buy a machine to make your own labor more efficient."
Wrong, as usual.
Can you tell me:
Re: (Score:2)
So is socialism in socialistic states - it's not forced on anyone, it just is. So your point is?
- of-course it's forced upon people.
Try and NOT pay the income taxes that the state forces you to pay for the so called 'social contract', which you have never signed. You'll quickly find yourself on the wrong side of a federal gun barrel.
Wrong, as usual.
- this statement is false.
1) Why Russia has no market economy. Maybe Russian Government now uses command economy and 5-year plans?
- the political system in Russia became hostage of the former power-brokers that came out of USSR. It's not a surprise that the largest criminal organizations in Russia originated out of ex-KGB agents. They don't subscribe to any individual lib
Re: (Score:2)
I have asked you WHY Russian economy is not a MARKET economy. I haven't asked about the power balance. What exactly makes Russian economy to be non-market economy?
"Capitalism naturally comes out of individual initiative, under-consumption and over-production that allows a person to build up some savings in order to increase his own efficiency to allow eventually a more comfortable life."
It doesn't. "Barracks communism" comes naturally, as observed in primitive societies.
"Socialism does not take a natural co
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we need government in the first place?
Answer that, and you'll have the answer to everything else that is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
"People who are in power currently don't want a market economy. A market economy requires acceptance of individual liberties and PROPERTY RIGHTS."
Let me quote an encyclopedia for you: "A market economy is an economy in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system.[1] This is often contrasted with a state-directed or planned economy". There is no planning in Russia or excessive state-based redistribution of wealth to poor people.
So Russian economy is definitely a market econom
Re: (Score:2)
"- there is no market economy in Russia because there is no rule of law and property rights."
Market economy doesn't require either of that. You fail again.
"- I said capitalism is a natural system and socialism is not. Poor societies cannot provide any social services"
But they do. Poor societies generally provide communal care for old and infirm people. Without insurance companies, you might notice. Even apes have this behavior - they care about injured and cooperate to protect against predators.
"- well, you
Re: (Score:2)
Market economy doesn't require either of that. You fail again.
- of-course it does. Just because you read some incomplete definition and keep misunderstanding the fundamentals doesn't mean I fail, it means you are incapable of seeing through the issue. Market economy requires both: price discovery and ability of the market to start new production.
Russian government does not follow even its own laws due to massive corruption and the laws that do exist do not protect individual liberties and property well enough. Consequently no new business can start in Russia that is
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't have to pay those taxes you would have that money.
If nobody paid taxes there would be no money to be had, money requires the backing of a civilization to be trusted, civilizations requires taxes to operate regardless of what type of civilization we're talking about. As for socialisim being the root of all economic evil - Do you burry your turds in your own back yard or do you use the public sewerage system? Do you have a flying car or do you use the public roads and bridges? Do you have a private beach or do you use the public one? Socialisim is all around
Re: (Score:2)
because capitalism makes sense as it is the most natural system
Natural != Better. Nature is a complex self organizing system, but it's exactly that: self organizing. There's no intelligence directing its development. We are intelligent, we can do better simply because we can plan things. If you think natural is better, then you're saying that all our advances in science and technology are inferior to cave dwelling.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we all are familiar with the outcomes of the 'intelligent' design imposed upon the economies by all these various political planners.
Be it USSR with its planned economy or North Korea or former "Communist" China or Cuba, be it USA Congress passing laws that made it more profitable to give out liar loans than honest loans because of government guarantees, or be it the Federal reserve and the counterfeiting since the 1913 and ever more counterfeiting and inflation since 1971, it's all "intelligently" de
Re: (Score:2)
However, central government in the USSR also transformed the country from an agrarian society to an industrial superpower with nuclear weapons in 20 years.
Government in the USA built the Interstate system and railroad system before that providing infrastructure for growth.
10 diff posts, 10 diff definitions of capitalism (Score:2)
something tells me that either we have no idea what 'capitalism' is, or it is a term that has no actual meaning, and we should probably just stop using it, like the way people in the 16th century should have stopped using the term 'black bile'.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear... from someone who grew up in Russia! (Score:2)
But, in light of "the book every American needs to read right now" on Huck's show, your should have plugged http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf [mises.org] , which dissects the point you were making perfectly!
Thanks for this and you other comments below, let's keep up the good fight (stalemate in RF today, hope for a win in USA next year).
In Liberty,
Pavel B.
Agreed now! Sorry! (Score:2)
Still, no harm in PDF link towards the start of the discussion, right?
Sorry, did not go that deep down before deciding to thank you, and provide some constructive suggestion...
Paul B.
United Russia is comparatively moderate... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Liberal Democrats are led by a leader who has said he wants to completely seal the borders, institute a police state, use nuclear weapons in the Caucasus, and reconquer Eastern Europe; the Communists are the kind of Communists that venerate Stalin and long for a return to the 1930's.
OK, I give... what's the _real_ difference between the Liberal Democrats and the Communists?
Re: (Score:3)
what's the _real_ difference between the Liberal Democrats and the Communists?
Primarily, it's that one of them is completely serious, while another one will say or do anything for the lulz (or at least no-one has devised any other rational explanation).
For example, here's what the LibDem leader had to say during the bird flu scare:
"We must force the government to stop the bird migration. We must shoot all birds, field all our men and troops... and force migratory birds to stay where they are. "
or here's on the subject of the previous elections, which I think takes the cake:
"Political
Re:United Russia is comparatively moderate... (Score:5, Informative)
You have now enumerated what the parties say about themselves, which is quite different from what they actually do. United Russia, for example, is simply the party of crony cleptocracy, judging by their ten-year track record. LibDems are the party of "just for lulz", they can say one thing today, do something else tomorrow, and say something completely different from either on the next day.
Communists, though, are not Stalinists. Part of their electorate is that - mostly old (60+) people who remember the USSR fondly because they weren't living in poverty back then, and pensions were actually big enough to provide for a decent living. But that electorate has been consistently dwindling as they age and die. The new one comes from younger people who are dissatisfied with crony capitalism, and want something along the lines of democratic socialism. Their program largely matches that later group - e.g. they officially endorse small and medium private businesses, while arguing for nationalization of oil industry and other "big guys". Also, unlike commies of old, these are quite religious and socially conservative - sometimes fervently so.
look beyond the party slogans (Score:2)
wonder how Alyona Show will cover this (Score:2)
oh wait, she can't. because she works for RT.
yes all journalists have certain instructions from their corrupt bosses. It just hurts more when its A. M. who has to kowtow.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Normal visitors' surge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea... He really didn't.
I know, I know, we all hate Bush. I get it. But the fact is that he won in 2000 because of the electoral college system, not because of any sort of fraud.
The Courts (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:The Courts (Score:5, Informative)
This election is being won by United Russia because of a large-scale electoral fraud [youtube.com] - voting for people [slashdot.org] who didn't come to vote [youtube.com], tampering with ballots [youtube.com], injecting prefilled ballots in ballot boxes [youtube.com], sending people to shove in more than one ballot when they vote [youtube.com], driving people around on buses to vote several times [youtube.com] etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If Bush had acted like Hitler, the 2000 election would have been the last one. If there was electoral fraud it wouldn't be the first, and some of the most notorious instances in US history have been in Democrat-controlled areas.
Russia actually was a computing pioneer (Score:2)
back in the 1890s, the guy who would later start this little company called IBM got the Czar to use his calculating machines to record their census.
later in the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union was one of IBM's biggest customers. it's hard to have a centrally planned economy for 100 million people without an awful lot of math and tabulation. this story has been basically, untold in history. wait 5 years, im writing a book on it.