• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Urshulgi

  • Rank
    Veteran Member


  • MBTI


  • Location
  • Occupation
    Social Media Content Manager
  • Interests
    Data accumulation
  • Gender
  1. China wants to put its citizens into a scoring system where activities such as volunteering their own time to help out old and handicapped people gets a few points, but speaking out against the government gets big negative points, and demonstrating against the government gets huge negative points. This scoring system will be public, and will influence everything from university placement, to jobs, to even getting a date. Of course, I'm pretty sure there's going to be a mechanism in it for gaining points through small charity donations...so that the children of the rich can amass insurmountable top scores through their parents giving a couple of thousand dollars to charity. Pretty sure there are more than a few UK and US politicians who are saying, "That's fucking brilliant, why didn't we propose that first?" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-surveillance-big-data-score-censorship-a7375221.html
  2. Goddamn right. Turning the other cheek just means you're going to get slapped twice. Rolling over for a lying shitbag like Hillary Clinton who has had her entire career handed to her on a plate isn't something I could ever stomach, and it's certainly not something I'm ever going to teach my children. When I've seen morons like this in the corporate world, I've immediately begun looking for other work opportunities, because working for idiots who are only milking their employees so they can advance to the next level is a recipe for unhappiness.
  3. I got put on a list somehow that led to me going through secondary screening five times in a row over the past two years every time I entered the U.S. It was completely stupid, and I got asked lots of questions about what I was doing overseas and why I was living where I was living. Meanwhile, I got to watch a parade of foreigners get waved through passport control to do whatever the fuck they were in the U.S. to do with hardly any questions. It was fucking insulting. My crime? Expressing some strong opinions online that tripped some keywords, apparently. That's what the DHS guy told me on the fifth trip through secondary screening when I asked him why I had to do this every time I entered the U.S., despite obviously being a U.S. citizen and a U.S. Army veteran. That's minor irritation in the grand scheme of things, but a completely unsubtle reminder that the government is monitoring your communications.
  4. I would have voted for Bernie. I won't be voting for Clinton or Trump. I've accepted that Hillary Clinton is going to win, so at this point I'm trying to prep people who are voting for her to actually pay attention to what she does after she's elected. Their civic duty doesn't begin and end on November 8th.
  5. That CNN reporter telling us that it wasn't illegal for him to read Hillary or Podesta's email, but it was probably illegal for us, the viewers, to read them.........that should have been a defining moment where Dorothy yanks back the curtain and exposes the all powerful wizard for being nothing but a creaky old buffoon. Instead, the other pro-Clinton networks barely mentioned it, and newspapers mostly gave it a pass. Or the whole scaremongering about how the content of the emails wasn't as important as who provided them to wikileaks...and how that narrative has been driven hard enough for quite a few college-educated fools to begin parroting it.
  6. Hrm, yet the people I know driving cars less than five years old and who live in nice houses are all a couple of missed paychecks away from financial disaster, despite having two incomes and only one or two children maximum. And that's in Houston, which is doing better than most cities.
  7. This is still a heavily in demand service, and most companies that are in any kind of controversial industry employ one of these firms and pay them well to work over the Google algorithm to drive negative mentions out of the top 10 search results. Pro-tip, if you want to find the buried articles based on negative search words of a company or product, start looking at results 11-30, not 1-10. Once the results are out of the top 10, almost no one is going to see them via casual search, and the reputation management company isn't going to devote extra resources to driving it out of the top 20 unless it's something they really don't like. ...... added to this post 3 minutes later: Well all they had to do was read Hillary and her team's emails on the air to show how fucking dishonest and utterly contemptuous they are of regulations, the legal process, and the voting public. But I guess it's hard for a news organization to report that the Clinton administration had go-to bagmen at most of the major networks, since they'd be reporting on their own journalistic corruption.
  8. Documentary about Edward Snowden and his decision to reveal proof that the NSA was spying on American citizens and lying to congress about it...with the approval of senior members of the house and senate intelligence committees and the presidential administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It was a sober reminder that those NSA programs haven't really gone away. The Bush administration really ramped them up, and Obama has led a war against whistleblowers while also expanding these warrantless data collection programs. Trump or Clinton will both be big supporters of these programs going forward, because neither one is a big fan of people being able to criticize them or investigate them without being punished. According to Snowden, one of his biggest reasons for revealing these programs is that he feared that the State's ability to oppress the populace was reaching a tipping point where it would become almost impossible to exercise your constitutional rights without facing government sanction. Something to keep in mind is that when your favorite political team wins in a couple of weeks, they're going to expect you to once again ignore the shady stuff they're doing, because you're too busy focusing on whatever it is you focus on that's not related to political elections and the "boring" day to day grind of your elected leadership.
  9. That simply hasn't been true about the Democrats since maybe the 80s at the latest. Sure, you'll find individual Democratic congresspeople or governors who still work for the people...when it's convenient at least. But that's more so at the state and local level. The Democrats who travel to D.C. are, for the most part, corporate whores who talk a big game but then consistently fumble at the 1 yard line when it comes to doing things that are better for the citizens than for some business or political interest.
  10. Uhm, my communication was pretty clear that the U.S. rigs and influences elections in other countries to the benefit of the U.S. That often means subverting democracy and going against the will of the people in those countries. Like Ukraine, for example. You don't get to complain about the Russians trying to damage the Democratic party this election cycle while being completely okay with the U.S. doing it on a far bigger scale in other countries. The Russians didn't write all those controversial emails, the Democrats did. If it gives people a negative view of the Democratic leadership, it's because of the content of the emails. It's not like the Russians are paying U.S. groups to organize violence at protests and political rallies. Simply publishing all of the laughably unsecured emails shouldn't be construed as an attack upon American democracy.
  11. Because if they really do understand the motives of the U.S., then they're not in a moral or ethical position to talk about the Russian government being immoral or bad in their actions. If they understand the motives and ambitions of the U.S., then they're in no position to criticize other countries for bombing civilians, being aggressive to other nation states, or using minor nation states as pawns in their schemes. You, for example, believe that Russia is trying to "squash the Democratic party", but don't acknowledge U.S. efforts to rig elections and finance opposition groups in our efforts to replace the leadership of other nations. Due to the statements people make, regarding the relationship between Russia and the U.S., in many cases I have to assume that people are either immoral, ignorant, or both.
  12. That sort of naivety is truly touching. If the politicians wanted people to decide anything, they wouldn't have so many shady superpacs and PR organizations whose only purpose is to make sure the people receive an extremely distorted view of reality. Fuck, dude, the Podesta and DNC emails have quite a few examples of party officials chatting about how to mislead people, feed stories to major media organizations, and squash negative stories. The Democratic party and the Republican party, have squashed the people for years. Looks like Hillary is rolling straight to the white house because the people don't mind being squashed. The people of the USA have voted time and time again for politicians that don't care about them but sure, let's believe that the biggest danger to American democracy is foreign actors leaking emails that were most definitely written by the fucking Democratic party and their associates.
  13. Because people don't understand how we go from 3 years ago, where no one is really talking about Russia other than for the super models and crazy dashcam videos they produce, to 2016 where all of a sudden Russia is some huge threat to all of its neighbors and global peace. Nor do people understand how US and EU led actions have caused Russia to be aggressive in its actions towards one of its neighbors. People don't understand that the Russian government has been playing the hand that they've been dealt, and they've been playing it well, despite the benevolent U.S. government doing their best to rig the game. Syria and Iran are allies of Russia, so expecting Russia to stand by while the U.S. did whatever they wanted to those countries is foolish, but that seems to be the exact position that many people, even our resident "intellectual" Democrats, have taken. I think that one of the issues is that in Western media, most of the "Russian Experts" aren't Russian, or experts. People cite "dissidents" who were really just gangsters and politicos who ended up on the losing end of a political struggle among the factions that vie for dominance. They cite Russians who haven't lived in Russia since 1992, as if those people have their pulse on what's happening in Moscow. They cite paranoid ex national security advisers from the fucking Reagan administration, etc. They make claims that being LGBT in Russia is some kind of hell on earth, when that isn't even remotely close to being true. It also isn't even part of the foreign policy discussion; it's just a fucking distraction to make yourself feel better about how backwards and mean those evil Russians are. Unless you're willing to consider that maybe CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. aren't using very credible sources, it's unlikely that you're going to have a realistic point of view of why the Russian government has made the moves it has. People are easily fooled and don't understand what the interests of the various actors in the Middle East are. Israel and Saudi Arabia both view Iran as their prime rival in the middle east, both of which tie back in to religion. Iran supports Syria, which is mostly Shiite, and Syria and Israel have had a lot of conflicts. Saudi Arabia, in its quest to make sure Sunni extremism is the dominant form of Islam worldwide, hates Iran because they're the number 1 Shiite power. The goal of Israel is simply to have Syria become a weak country that will be stuck dealing with internal problems for the next 20+ years. They want the Assad regime to fall, but they want the Alawite Shiites to stay, because that will preserve an internal power struggle that won't be resolved any time soon. The goal of Saudi Arabia is to have Assad and the Shiites fall hard and for the government to be replaced by Sunni jihadists, and then eventually get the U.S. to decapitate that leadership so that they can be replaced by Sunni "moderates" funded by Saudi Arabia. The U.S. doesn't care about Syrians. The U.S. only has one plan for Syria: making it a failed state. There's no plan for a peaceful transition, there's no plan for any kind of real peace deal. The goal from day 1 has been to topple the Syrian government and replace it with one that is friendly to Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, and not friendly to Russia or Iran. That was the plan under Bush, that has been the plan under Obama, and that will be the plan under Hillary.
  14. It's definitely going to be horrible to watch, just like the previous two. Presidential debates are just puppet theater anyways. They're the public position the politicians take, and in no way should any of their statements be construed as promises for what they're actually going to do.
  15. There's a shitload of princes. If he got in trouble, it's only because he killed a prince of equal or higher rank. If he would have killed a commoner, nothing would have happened to him other than having to pay the victim's family.