BruceVC

Bad as in "evil" or bad as in "harmful to you"? Bad as in evil young grasshopper, bad as in evil

Though I agree that in today's economy sanctions are going to hit everyone and not only the recipient, the links you posted don't really support what you are saying. Private rating agencies have a proven track record of inaccuracy with regards to their predictions and their credit ratings are rather laughable. The other link just tells the story of travel bans and asset freezes of some of Putin's collaborators. No hard economic figures anywhere. Heavily financialized economies such as the US are going to be more vulnerable to geopolitical instability, too. 2133 please don't be lazy, all you need to do is Google "Russian Index loses 20 %" or do some similar search. I can't spoon- feed you So what I'm saying is irrefutable fact, the Russian economy has suffered since the Crimean invasion for a variety of reasons, but suffering it still is

Meanwhile dear comrade Obama promise moar sanctions for god of sanction. Oby here are real facts that since Russia invaded Crimea the Russian economy has been badly effected... your credit ratings have tumbled,your main stock market index has fallen by roughly 20% and your currency has hit historic lows against the dollar. No matter what you pretend to believe whenever the West gets hit hard economically because of Crimea Russia gets hit twice as hard http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2014/03/20/sp-cuts-outlook-on-russia-to-negative/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/17/news/economy/russia-crimea-sanctions/index.html http://news.yahoo.com/fitch-downgrades-russia-outlook-negative-over-ukraine-crisis-064301757.html;_ylt=A0LEVx.mDCxTljwAMKVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbThmbm1hBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1NNRTM4OV8x

Yeah, I rather suspect he's of the opinion that whatever he says will be spun negatively in the west ("cat lovers disgusted at Putin's pro puppy stance") so he deliberately trolls for the visceral thrill of bunching morons panties, rather too many half smiles after saying something controversial for it to be coincidence. Indeed, one of his old advisors said that he basically does do it deliberately on Al-J. You guys need to realize that despite what you think the concept of Trolling is an Internet phenomena, don't mistake behavior on forums with behavior in RL. World leaders don't " Troll" they make strategic decisions that have real consequences in the best interests of there country

Yeah, the hardcore aim was ridiculous. Sitting at the very edge of my Dragunov's scope, barely able to make out enemies, crouched down and in partial cover, meanwhile they are hitting me with almost perfect accuracy with assault rifles. Keyrock you know what they say " a bad FPS player blames the AI of the enemy "

I'd say she already raised the awareness about this, simply due to the hateful and hysterical reaction she has received. I find it stunning that when I started interesting myself in video games, the branche was in it self progressive and innovative and so was the people associated with it and playing the games. Sometimes nerds, sometimes geeks, but usually fairly open minded and tolerant people. After having watched the backlash at Sarkessian's kickstarter campaign, I wondered: What the Hell happened? So, obviously, I started looking into what it was she was talking about, and thus became interested in the debate. So while I don't agree with her completely, she does raise some relevant points and the hysteria surrounding her campaign more or less proves her point. You've raised some good points, I have a similar story to you. I always use to be concerned about issues around social justice but I gave it only a cursory glance. I live in a country with a high level of violence against women and children so about 3-4 years ago I became involved in various campaigns where South Africans publicly reject this form of abuse This translated into looking at discrimination on the Internet and the whole issue around objectification of women in games became another focus point. Its real and does exist and of course there are different interpretations of it but as you mentioned you can see by the vitriol directed toward Sarkessian some of the challengers around this. Certain people become very angry around any perceived change to what they enjoy...even if that change doesn't effect there gaming experience

I do but I am an English South African so my understanding of Afrikaans is better than how I speak it

..you funny Meshugger

Nationalism is an ideology Bruce... and it's not why wars are fought in modern times. Anyone who thinks that buys into the manipulations and propaganda of those who are behind the war. I don't know if I agree to that definition...but I could be convinced? For me the Cold War was a war of ideology but for example the Bosnian War was about nationalism

There are exceptions to what I stated, hence me writing 'almost never' but they are rare in modern times, and absent from most if not all major conflicts western nations have been involved in. Ideology/religion have played almost no role in almost all wars in the last half century other than to galvanize some support amongst the masses. Most of the folks who are calling the shots in this world at this point really don't give a poop about the peasants and are motivated by greed and power, things such as ideologies and religion are just tools for them. Most of the exceptions to this can be found in Africa, but even there it's often outside interests (usually European) manipulating the locals in a divide and conquer fashion to gain access to resources. Nah, less wars in this modern age are about resources or resources is just part of the reason and a smaller part.

While noting the economic interests of waging war is important, dismissing other root causes as "manufactured for the general public" is silly. There are plenty of reasons war is fought and economics is just a part of them, not the sole reason. Ideology and religion are just two of the most notable. I agree 100 %, Rostere summed it up nicely in his post on the invasion of Iraq. I'll add another reason wars are fought and its nationalism, like WW1. Its similar to ideology but different in its own respects

Yay, tomorrow is a public holiday in South Africa..Human Rights Day. I'm resisting all invites to large parties this weekend and plan to chill and game over the next 3 days. I'm also taking out this girl I took out last week, I really like her. We are going to drive outside JHB to a dam called Hartebeespoort, there are loads of bars and restaurants and cool things to see and do....there is Cheese Farm called Van Galens which sells Dutch cheeses and they arrange picnics . Anyway it should be a nice break

Happy B-day

Oh, but that's not the argument I made, only the one you construed from amputating half my post. Pretty much in line with your tendency to mischaracterize the positions of others into black-or-white bull**** strawmen that you can then heroically ride in on your high horse and righteously put down. Try again! (protip: this time try making a rebuttal that is not a one-liner. You need to be witty and original for those to work, you are not quite there yet) Wouldn't it just be easier and more cordial just to say " no that's not the argument I made" ?

Actually, Ukraine pre-Maidan was a buffer zone. The likely product of this sad episode, to wit, an extremely anti-Russian Ukrainian remnant and territories annexed by Russia is the complete opposite. This is weird but I agree with you The net result of this whole Ukrainian crisis is a country that is ideologically polarized and aligned to different political blocs

You should visit their site more often and check them out for yourself... http://www.aljazeera.com/ Al Jazeera is way more credible than RT. I fact, I think it's generally one of the best news sources when it comes to the ME and developing countries in general. To be honest, I have no idea why people would feel they are a bad news source. Maybe it's because uninformed bigots think "Al Jazeera" sounds like "Al Qaeda"? They obviously have a focus - the ME - which shapes what news they're interested in reporting (just like most American news channels have a focus on the US), but that's pretty much it. Personally, I think that their great coverage of the Iraq war (considering they were the only independent news source on the ground), and the later far more crucial role during the Arab Spring has made them the most important - with respect to how much they have changed the previous status quo - news channel thus far into this century. For people in the ME, real (non-English) journalism on TV not tied to their government or other political movements was often very scarce until Al Jazeera came along. AJ was also the first Arab news channel to feature Israelis on panels debating the I-P conflict and during Cast Lead they had an IDF spokesperson in pretty much every news update, that should say something about their intent of impartiality. To compare, name one US news channel which regularly features comment from Palestinian spokespersons on news updates about the I-P conflict. Here's a recent feature I watched the other day about international arms trade, featuring arms trade experts from SIPRI and Jane's Information Group. Watch yourself and see if you think it's professional and serious news TV. This is another feature I saw linked a lot on Facebook earlier. Their "Opinion" pieces by independent journalists can feature crackpots at times though, but at least they draw the line clearly to separate their serious journalism from "interesting opinions from unrelated people". I agree, I watch the English version AJ often and they sometimes have insight and interviews with people that your normal Western news channels don't have. Especially around the ME as you mentioned. I also think they offer an objective opinion of most news stories unlike RT

+1 As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime. It's also funny that people will soil themselves at the though of "Russian boots on their necks again", but the strategy of systematic encirclement of Russia by NATO is, on the other hand, just fine. I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO. But then in this debate lets acknowledge this, these spurious justifications that Russia moved into the Crimea because of the illegal removal of Yanukovych and the threat from Fascists are moot. Lets discuss the real reason the Crimean annexation Because it's either/or, right? That is convenient as that way we can simply ignore everything else and focus on the Enemy Of The Week, as has been the official party line from day one. We do feel quite naked without our blindfolds. No, thanks. Let's not forget that Russia subscribed to the Feb 21 agreement. Putin has moved much faster (and with far greater boldness) than the US and EU anticipated, but he's still basically reacting. One of the Russian Ukrainians in the video Agiel posted hit the nail on the head: Russia has lost Ukraine as a partner nation, and annexing Crimea and south east Ukraine isn't going to change that. The hydrocarbons are a nice bonus, as is the large amount of arable land (agriculture is one of the main economic sectors of Ukraine), but for a country that's already the world's largest oil producer -and with huge untapped reserves in east Siberia- it's definitely not the motive. In the event that Putin may be trying to resurrect the Russian Empire, maybe that is a good reason to actually start promoting strong, stable and independent democratic regimes within the Russian sphere of influence, instead of propping up corrupt kleptocrats more receptive to western suggestion, hmm? You make some interesting points, I thought Saudi Arabia was the worlds biggest oil producer but I checked and it is Russia. And yes it would make sense if Ukraine was a unified country but politically aligned to Russia but thats not the reality. So even though in the interests of Russian hegemony you would want Ukraine to remain independent but be part of a Russian union what Putin has done to create a buffer zone is still not acceptable

Wow for someone who likes making jokes you don't have much of a sense of humour....I was joking KP....I don't think you can be scared of Zombies in RL because they don't exist , I know you know this, therefore everything after that is just me having some fun (I'm funny hey KP )

+1 As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime. It's also funny that people will soil themselves at the though of "Russian boots on their necks again", but the strategy of systematic encirclement of Russia by NATO is, on the other hand, just fine. I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO. That depends on what his grasp of reality is and how much he believes his own propaganda. If the latter, he's reconstructing the Russian empire and Crimea makes a good starting point for that. Baltics, Finland, mebbe Poland etc. next. For the Forgotten Realms fans, we have yet to see whether we are dealing with Bane or with Cyric after he read the Cyrinishad. Nep you do realize that in a world dominated by Russian hegemony and geographical ambitions Finland should be part of the Russian empire. There is a positive to this, I imagine there would be interminable legal disputes...so work for lawyer would be easy to find....but how is your Russian by the way

Thinking of that myself. Best of luck. Thanks. It's never an easy decision, but I felt so good when I finally decided. I'm in my late 20's and have come up with many excuses as to why I should not go back and study. Looking at those excuses objectively, it dawned on me, that they are merely excuses. A close friend's wife, is now a boss at some company and she resumed her studies at 30+ with three kids. There is also another thing I have in mind if I don't get accepted to any of the Universities I apply to later in the month. That "thing" will have to wait for now. Worst case scenario is that i crawl back to my employer (not very likely unless welfare is the only option). Meanwhile, I'm in my early thirties, have a a phd level law degree in addition to the ll.m. required to practice around here, additionally have over 4 years of practical work experience in law, and have been working since I was 15 (as a barista)... and can't basically get any decent work. Mostly I don't even get interviewed due to some bs excuses like "he won't stay"... not even for contracts. Thats scary that someone of your work experience can't find work ...

+1 As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime. It's also funny that people will soil themselves at the though of "Russian boots on their necks again", but the strategy of systematic encirclement of Russia by NATO is, on the other hand, just fine. I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO. But then in this debate lets acknowledge this, these spurious justifications that Russia moved into the Crimea because of the illegal removal of Yanukovych and the threat from Fascists are moot. Lets discuss the real reason the Crimean annexation

Ooof. I feel like a physics professor that got something from a student that says F= Emc2 / a2 + b2 and 2 + 2 = 7. You know some things, but they're quite jumbled and more than a bit off. As far as physics goes: E=mc2, F=MA, a2 + b2 = c2, and 2 + 2 = 4. As far as what you wrote above goes, that will take quiet a bit more. All but the last two of your bullet points could easily have a much longer post than this response fully disputing what you think many times over. The last two, easily could have long posts explaining to you in detail what's what about them. I don't have time for that, but I'll see what I can do in brief in the next day or two. In the meantime, do us all a favor and go read the U.S. Constitution in it's entirety, the Federalist papers, Anti-Federalist papers, and somehow become more familiar with U.S. history than you are, in particular what lead up to the American Revolution, why what's in the Constitution is there, and why it's important. Doing that should shed some light on some of what you're wrong about above, and why and under what circumstances Obama could and should be impeached, tried, and convicted. Because like him or not, he has purposefully broken a number of laws, Constitutional laws, and big ones. Thinking or saying otherwise is either naivety, ignorance, or delusion. In very short though, the girl is mostly right about what you think she's wrong about. She, an American, has a bit better understanding of what's gone on in her nation that you do. Not to say plenty of Americans also don't have a clue what goes on, many don't, and some foreigners have more than a good idea of what goes on here, you're just not one of them. Anon. I'll follow up later. So because I'm not an American I automatically don't know anything about the strengths and weaknesses of the Obama presidency, thats a new low even for you. But irrelevant to what I said. Her diatribe about why Obama has been the worst president in the history of the USA consists of a few truths, subjective opinions and factual untruths. You now need to go through each of my points and explain why I am so misinformed and why I need to read the American constitution in order to make what I posted relevant . Good luck with trying to redefine the truth in your book

How do you watch such a video and come away thinking she has an 'utter lack of understanding'? What exactly does she say that you think indicates she doesn't understand, and what is it she doesn't understand? Enlighten me, as I'm finding it hard to not think most of what she said and presented flew right over your head. That girl is no sage by any means, but she's a helluva lot more with it than most. More awake than most of the folks in this forum, Obama likers or dislikers both. You, and most of the people here could learn a lot from her. Edit: Congrats on watching a video! I'm glad you did. It's a start! I do watch some video's but not around serious political discussion because of the lack of valid information and information you can confirm...but lets see why she has no clue what she is talking about. I'll just focus on some of what she said she says "Obama shouldn't have bailed out the banks". Despite the fact that the USA banking institutions have recovered from 2008 and almost all economic experts agree that intervention from the federal government was necessary to prevent a global depression She is convinced of the failure of Obamacare, yet we still need to see the result She says Obama expanded Bush's wars, yet the USA is out of Iraq and has a deadline in Afghanistan. Obama has done a lot to reduce the military investment in various conflicts around the world and has avoided starting other wars, like in Syria and Iran She thinks killing known Al-Qaeda operatives is wrong She thinks people like Snowden are heroes, despite the fact he comprised and still does the security of the USA She thinks that Obama personally doesn't want to close Guantanamo Bay Where in the USA have protests been criminalized ? She says that Obama and his fellow politicians spread hate and she would rather spread love and not restrict people from achieving there potential. What does this even mean, where is the substance in what she is saying So yes in summary she has no clue what she is talking about and this video is just an uninformed attempt to get attention and its an epic fail

No on both counts. Okay, because you know there is nothing wrong with admitting you are scared about something. Thats one of the advantages of this new equality movement, its okay for men to show emotion. Men can cry and men can say " I'm scared about xx or yyy". This doesn't diminish your role in society