Really? WE sponsored a VIOLENT coup? So you take the purely Russian viewpoint.
Wiki-
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets.[38][39] Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union (EU).[40][41] One of the measures meant to achieve this was an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. This sparked a wave of protests called the "Euromaidan" movement. During these protests Yanukovych signed a treaty and multibillion-dollar loan with Russia. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled to Russia and did not return.[44]

Russia refused to recognize the new interim government, calling the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup d'état, and began a military intervention in Ukraine. The newly appointed interim government of Ukraine signed the EU association agreement and agreed to reform the country's judiciary and political systems, as well as its financial and economic policies. The International Monetary Fund pledged more than $18 billion in loans contingent on Ukraine's adopting those reforms. The revolution was followed by pro-Russian unrest in some south-eastern regions, a standoff with Russia regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and a war between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass.



The thing to remember about Crimea is it WASN'T PART OF RUSSIA, so no it didn't hold Russia's only black sea port not ice blocked in winter, it held a Ukrainian port Russia LEASED for use by it's black sea fleet from the Ukraine.
It's utter bullshit that Russia found a democratic way to invade and annex Crimea, they militarily invaded, seized and dissolved the democratically elected government by force, created and installed a new pro Russian sham government, then IT signed fake illegal treaties with Russia in violation of international laws and multiple binding treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.[2][3]
The head of Ukrainian Navy, Admiral Berezovsky, defects, followed later by half of the Ukrainian military stationed in the region.[4][5][6]
Russian forces seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament). The Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved and a new pro-Russian Prime Minister installed.[7][8]
The new Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent, self-governing entity, then holds a referendum on the status of Crimea on 16 March, which results in a majority vote to join the Russian Federation.[9]
Treaty signed between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.[10]
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on 19 March by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces the withdrawal of its forces from Crimea.[11]
Russia suspended from G8.[12]
International sanctions introduced on Russia.

You sound distinctly Soviet or ridiculously ignorant in your misrepresentation of the situation. They militarily attacked, invaded, and seized their neighbor, so not a bit restrained, they were not invited in by the government and welcomed....or would you insist they are also exceptionally restrained for not attacking and retaking Anchorage Alaska, their only non winter ice bound port in North America, a port clearly more strategically important than Sebastopol and just as Russian?

World leaders are cumulatively an agency for international corporations. NATFA, MAI, TPP, and every g8, g12, gWhatever summit are all secretive meetings with the same end result: to break down barriers to trade and facilitate greater corporate profit. These agreements give corporations the power to supersede local labour, environmental and trade laws and they have been layering one agreement atop another for years.

Thank you to Wikileaks for exposing what protesters on the ground have always known but weren't able to prove. Once thought of as lunatics, they are now the most sane among us. It's going to be a sad world if we don't stand up to corporate money in politics, although they'll be keeping us happy in the meantime with cheap goods and entertainment and status-quo, happy-happy news reporting from mainstream media.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Mordhaus.

@jimnms

I'll address by paragraphs:

(1)

The reason I suggested that you are implying that the US is more violent by nature is because statistically it is far more murderous than a country of its socio-economic development should be. Have a look at Nationmaster tables of GDP/capita and compare than to murders/capita in terms of where the US sits.

If we take the view that you are suggesting that we should simply reduce violence globally then that is a laudable goal but it would suggest that the US is abysmally failing at this currently. I happen to believe this reason is gun availability. I see no reason to believe this abysmal failure comes from gross police incompetence or any other plausible factor, rather the gun ownership and availability that sticks out like a sore thumb when you compared to other countries such as those in the G8.

(2)

I think that we would be both agree that there are more gun enthusiasts in rural areas. Many of those would also own collections of guns for recreation rather than merely what self protection would require. The article below cites a study from 2007 by Harvard that says 20% own 65% of the nation's guns.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/tragedy-stresses-multiple-gun-ownership-trend-in-us/1781285/

There is no reason to suspect that these people are any more violent than your non gun-owning folk. The issue is not so much ownership levels, but the availability that feeds a would-be criminal's capacity to carry out a crime.

While actual ownership levels might be lower, guns can no doubt be purchased for cheaper and within a closer proximity in densely populated cities. This availability feeds the likelihood of them being employed as a tool to facilitate a crime.

This is also incidentally a key misunderstanding of the whole gun debate. No one is (or should be at least) implying that recreational gun owners are the problem. It is the necessity for guns to be freely available to gun enthusiasts among others for them to enjoy this hobby that causes the problems.

(3)

Building on my above point above, gun control shouldn't be seen as a punishment. There is no vidictiveness to it, merely a matter of weighing up the results of two courses of action. On the one hand there is diminished enjoyment of legal and responsible gun owners. On the other hand there is the high murder rate I discussed earlier, which really can't be explained away any other way than gun availability.

Let's do a back of the envelope calculation. Australia and the US are culturally relatively similar Anglo-Saxon societies. Let's assume for the sake of argument that my suggestion is true. Referencing wiki here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The homicide rate in Australia is 1.0/10K/year and 4.8/10K/year. Let's say that gun availability explains 2/3rds of the difference. So we're talking about a 2.5/10K/year increase. Taking this against the US's 310M population this represents 7,500 more deaths.

Now to me, the issue is clear cut. The lives lost outweight gun enthusiast enjoyment.

And it's not just to me. There is a very clear reason that the vast majority of developed countries have made gun ownership incredibly difficult. I can guarantee, at some point they have done this back of the envelope calculation for their own country.

(4)

You raise the comparison to cars. See my workings above. With cars, they obviously provide a fundamentally invaluable benefit to society. The choice every society has made is to instead heavily regulate them. The reason there is no outcry to impose heavy restrictions on them is because there already are.

- Being required to pass license tests.
- Strict driving rules to follow.
- Speeding cameras everywhere.
- Random police checks for alcohol.

Can you think of any further regulations plausibly worth trying with cars that could reduce the accident death rate? I struggle to think of anything else effective that hasn't already been implemented.

With guns there are dozens of options not yet tried.

- Rigorous background checks.
- No gun show exemption.
- Assault weapon restrictions.
- Restrictions of ammo such as cost tariffs.

The list goes on. Imagine if we lacked the regulations we do on cars and there was a NCA (National Car Association) that was equating requiring to pass a driving test to tyranny.

(5)

I don't think there's much irrationality here. The US is clearly more murderous than other G8/OECD countries. To me, Occam's Razor explains why.

As for the comment on focussing on tragedies than the large issue, see my previous comment. You're missing the point that it's not just the gun sprees that are the problem, it's the steadily high murder rate. Mass shooting are just blips in this.

(6)

I will have a read through this.

If you want to talk about gun violence, show gun violence statistics. If you want to talk about violence in general, show general violence statistics. But don't talk about gun violence, show general violence statistics, and talk about media conspiracies.

It started out compelling with unbiased sources, then proceeded downhill.

I've tried to dig this up myself, but as I think it's universally agreed, the categorization of crime and the regional differences makes it hard to make an apples to apples comparison. As much as I can see, the US crime rate is low and getting lower, however the percentage of gun homicide is still much higher than comparable G8 countries and is a worthwhile discussion:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Banning guns is retarded; a reasonable discussion about restrictions to access is much less... retarded.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by ZappaDanMan.

>> ^dannym3141:

I tell you what, this sort of shit is exactly what these protesters need. If the police start manipulating people's trust in the police before handing out arrests, more people are gonna get pissed off. I'd be more happy to get pissed off at corrupt fucking police than wall street, because corrupt fucking police are given their orders by corrupt fucking government and that's where my hatred lies.
If i were the government right now, i'd be very fucking careful with what the police are doing, because oppression is one way to make this REALLY kick off and give every little group a common enemy to support each other against.
Reminds me of what michael moore said in that other video - the police are used to having power through cooperation, they're used to people doing as their told. They forget that there's fewer of them than there are of the people they're trying to control - that could get real ugly real fast; this does actually worry me a bit.
I bet the net result of this is an INCREASE in the number of protesters.


Bam. Exactly. They're using logic that came about in the past 10 years that if you make things "uncomfortable" for protesters at say G8 or something they will be marginalized and nobody will care what they're protesting. The problem is this world is more viral...more video and photos and contact than EVER before. This is us though and these are problems that concern us so a lot more people are watching this with interest and they see how the cops are treating these protesters.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

Shepppard said:
◄
@petpeeved

The reason people need to obtain a permit is because people gathering to protest could lead to a "security risk".

May not happen, but if you incite enough people to do something stupid, all those stupid people with adrenaline running through their veins may lead to them damaging the area they're protesting on.

Granted, it could be seen as an overly elaborate way to stop people from protesting, but it's more of a damage control then a restriction.

Essentially, you get a permit to allow you access to a venue, and should something go wrong at that venue, you're held accountable for it. So, to that end, I don't think someone "Peacefully assembling" should have ANY trouble obtaining a permit, and should therefore take responsibility for whatever their "peaceful protestors" do to the venue they're at. After all, they're peaceful, nothing should get damaged. Right?

@Genjipatrick

Basically, see @Barboards2.

Vague terms to justify stepping on fundamental civil rights is a hallmark of the 20th and now 21st century. "Security Risk" sounds just like one that I could see any right wing politician using to justify anything that opposes their agenda. The protests of the 1960s were messy, disruptive, powerful and sometimes very effective but in almost all cases where there was violence, it emanated from the government, not the protesters. Americans haven't conducted a large scale armed organized resistance against the government since the Civil War so what exactly is the "security risk" of protesting without a permit? Damage to property? We have laws to cover that. No need, and no right, to insert a layer of bureaucracy on top of the First Amendment. In fact, we have so many laws on the books now that almost every conceivable (and inconceivable as evidenced by the recent Jefferson Memorial arrests for dancing) offense is covered by normal criminal procedures.

To put it bluntly: do you not feel uneasy about say, protesters being allowed only to protest in a corral many blocks and sometimes a mile from the actual site of the event or politician that is the subject of the protest? Look at the G8 summits. That's standard practice now simply because of some property damage. That's not a protest; that's a wax museum depicting a protest.

Read this: it's just one of a dozen similar accounts across the globe:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/05/g8.globaleconomy1

Related: Larry's keynotes at the e-G8 summit this week.

I love you.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Both MSNBC and FOX provide a biased view of events and distort the truth. Everyone knows this, somehow I never see you attributing this on both sides of the fence though.

Socialism is a broad term than means everything to everyone. Yes, countries like the UK and Australia provide more baseline social services like health care provision and social security but that is the only real substantial difference.

The average worker's disposable income is roughly the same:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/01/taxes_and_dispo.html

Whatever you call them, they're both free market economies, with the same rights for individuals on the things that matter. Using a phrase that can simultaneously refer to a single party regimes based on Marxism like China and Vietnam is misleading and you know it.

How about the other G8 countries? Last time I checked every other country in it: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia all had much more in common in terms of civil programs with the UK/Aus than the US.

Distortions aside, the fact of that matter is that most people living in developed countries would consider the views of conservatives in the US far right wing. They would probably consider a publicly subsidized, individual mandate including, private health care system like the one Obama proposed, Romney enacted and Republicans proposed in the 1990s as a right wing proposal. The fact that you probably think it would destroy the economy should be proof enough who's really on the extremity of opinion.

For that matter, I'd be interested in your take on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-revealed-a-moderate-republican/2011/04/25/AFPrGfkE_story.html

Feel free to point out any inaccuracies you can identify.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Britain and Australia? Those countries have a two-party system: Socialist and Even More Socialist.
And it's not that the libmedia here "make fun" of conservatives. They distort, lie, omit and cheat the public every day and have done so for 60-plus years. They neither challenge nor question authority when it's a Taxocrat in power. Liberal shills do not good journalists make.
It's odd how the left instantly sees the bias of Fox news but never their own.

>> ^RedSky:
If you think the liberal networks make fun of where American conservatism is, you should see what people on British or Australian talk shows say about them when the topic comes up.
Are they DNC mouthpieces too?>> ^quantumushroom:
Do you think—could it be possible—that Fox News lied in order to promote a conservative agenda?
If they did, they still have 60 years of playing catch-up to the libmedia, who work out of DNC hindquarters.

Both MSNBC and FOX provide a biased view of events and distort the truth. Everyone knows this, somehow I never see you attributing this on both sides of the fence though.

Socialism is a broad term than means everything to everyone. Yes, countries like the UK and Australia provide more baseline social services like health care provision and social security but that is the only real substantial difference.

The average worker's disposable income is roughly the same:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/01/taxes_and_dispo.html

Whatever you call them, they're both free market economies, with the same rights for individuals on the things that matter. Using a phrase that can simultaneously refer to a single party regimes based on Marxism like China and Vietnam is misleading and you know it.

How about the other G8 countries? Last time I checked every other country in it: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia all had much more in common in terms of civil programs with the UK/Aus than the US.

Distortions aside, the fact of that matter is that most people living in developed countries would consider the views of conservatives in the US far right wing. They would probably consider a publicly subsidized, individual mandate including, private health care system like the one Obama proposed, Romney enacted and Republicans proposed in the 1990s as a right wing proposal. The fact that you probably think it would destroy the economy should be proof enough who's really on the extremity of opinion.

For that matter, I'd be interested in your take on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-revealed-a-moderate-republican/2011/04/25/AFPrGfkE_story.html

Feel free to point out any inaccuracies you can identify.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Britain and Australia? Those countries have a two-party system: Socialist and Even More Socialist.
And it's not that the libmedia here "make fun" of conservatives. They distort, lie, omit and cheat the public every day and have done so for 60-plus years. They neither challenge nor question authority when it's a Taxocrat in power. Liberal shills do not good journalists make.
It's odd how the left instantly sees the bias of Fox news but never their own.

>> ^RedSky:
If you think the liberal networks make fun of where American conservatism is, you should see what people on British or Australian talk shows say about them when the topic comes up.
Are they DNC mouthpieces too?>> ^quantumushroom:
Do you think—could it be possible—that Fox News lied in order to promote a conservative agenda?
If they did, they still have 60 years of playing catch-up to the libmedia, who work out of DNC hindquarters.

Cost to beat up Toronto citizens and build a fake lake for contrived G8/G20 photo ops: $1 Billion$
Cost to build set for leaders debate discussing democracy: $19.00. No charge for the echo.