Gays, Putin, and Skiing! Olympics Megathread: THE POLITICS

[Farnhamia]

Ah, the Olympics. It one of the few sporting events I like. Who doesn't? The world watches as people from around the world compete for the gold. However, this year is... Different. It's in a volatile region of a tyrannical country that oppresses gays and harbors criminals like like Snowden who should face trial. If you were in charge of any team, would you boycott them? If so, why? Also, if you are watching them, what would you say is your favorite event?

Also, feel free to talk about anything Olympics-related. Think of this as another mega thread. The first one died out. So this is like an un-official part two.

Mod edit: removed baiting last entry in the poll.

*** Warned for trolling/flamebaiting by adding "Being an Apologist/Making unsubstantiated claims about Russia" to the poll ***

[Gallup]

So its wrong for Russia to harbor a whistleblower but okay for Ecuador?

Nope.

[Gallup]

Ah, the Olympics. It one of the few sporting events I like. Who doesn't? The world watches as people from around the world compete for the gold. However, this year is... Different. It's in a volatile region of a tyrannical country that oppresses gays and harbors criminals like like Snowden who should face trial. If you were in charge of any team, would you boycott them? If so, why? Also, if you are watching them, what would you say is your favorite event?

Also, feel free to talk about anything Olympics-related. Think of this as another mega thread. The first one died out. So this is like an un-official part two.

Mod edit: removed baiting last entry in the poll.

*** Warned for trolling/flamebaiting by adding "Being an Apologist/Making unsubstantiated claims about Russia" to the poll ***

I want to challenge that. It was an equal opportunity offender option.

[Shofercia]

Except it is, specifically, about me and some other guy. As you said earlier:

You guys were the most fervent debates, so, yeah, it's based off you two, I guess. But it's more about the debaters in general.

You just said it was about me and some other guys. Stop backpedaling. If you wanted to make fun of the most fervent debaters, you should've done so in the thread, via responses, not via a poll. The reason for this is that I cannot respond to the poll, but I can respond to the post. In order to respond to the poll, I'd have to start another thread for the sole purpose of responding to you, which is against the rules on NSG.

*** Warned for trolling/flamebaiting by adding "Being an Apologist/Making unsubstantiated claims about Russia" to the poll ***

I want to challenge that. It was an equal opportunity offender option.

I targeted your OP, i.e. the post. You targeted me, i.e. the poster. You also targeted someone else, but that's irrelevant. You can target the post, not the poster. This is how NSG works.

[Farnhamia]

You guys were the most fervent debates, so, yeah, it's based off you two, I guess. But it's more about the debaters in general.

You just said it was about me and some other guys. Stop backpedaling. If you wanted to make fun of the most fervent debaters, you should've done so in the thread, via responses, not via a poll. The reason for this is that I cannot respond to the poll, but I can respond to the post. In order to respond to the poll, I'd have to start another thread for the sole purpose of responding to you, which is against the rules on NSG.

It is. You complained, he got warned, whether it was directed solely at you or not is irrelevant. Move on.

[Gallup]

Let's just move on. I drop my challenge to the ruling, you drop the anger.

[Shofercia]

You just said it was about me and some other guys. Stop backpedaling. If you wanted to make fun of the most fervent debaters, you should've done so in the thread, via responses, not via a poll. The reason for this is that I cannot respond to the poll, but I can respond to the post. In order to respond to the poll, I'd have to start another thread for the sole purpose of responding to you, which is against the rules on NSG.

It is. You complained, he got warned, whether it was directed solely at you or not is irrelevant. Move on.

Right, sorry, moving on

So, how many here knew that ice hockey Olympians are the highest paid in their sports, being paid more than the rest of their counterparts, combined?

[Republic of Greater America]

What about eSports?

[Shofercia]

What about eSports?

Can you please provide some examples of eSports?

[Gallup]

What about eSports?

That's not an Olympic sport.

[Thama]

...How is Snowden a criminal? He's a whistleblower.

[Gallup]

...How is Snowden a criminal? He's a whistleblower.

He technically broke his non disclosure agreement, breaking a law.

[Chinese Regions]

So its wrong for Russia to harbor a whistleblower but okay for Ecuador?

Nope.

So you don't support Julian Asaange?

[Gravlen]

Wasting time would be the one who argues that a high birth rate is evidence that human righs and social rights are improving. And that one is you.

I didn't say high birth rate, please learn to read.

I read what you linked to when you said... well, let us have a look back:

Next up, Social Rights: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomani ... emography/

That shows that Social Rights dramatically increased under Putin, as did the standard of living, and the economy. Which is why Russians are having more babies, as a sign of confidence in their country: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomani ... e-experts/

Your first source after you've said "Next up, Social rights" show...

11 Things Everyone Should Know About Russian Demography

It shows that Russia’s population is growing, before it goes on to talk about increasing birth rates and declining abortion rates as well as mortality rates. So you're linking to an article showing higher birth rates as evidence for improving Social Rights. And then you continue to link to an article showing that Russians are having more babies.

So if you weren't talking about high birth rates, the only logical conclusion is that you really don't know what you're arguing.

My argument was that if Social Rights improve, the standard of living improves, and if the standard of living improves, (all else being equal,) in Russia people will have more babies. The birth rate is still quite low.

Yet you failed to show that social rights are improving, instead jumping to that conclusion based on higher birth rates. You also failed to show that the standard of living has improved, instead only - again - showing increased birth rates. Your claim that "That shows that Social Rights dramatically increased under Putin, as did the standard of living, and the economy" is false, as the only thing it actually showed was - wait for it - that the birth rates had increased.

I know it's difficult to read, but: the suppression of the Prague Spring.

It's not difficult for me to read, but perhaps it's difficult for you?

So it's difficult for me, and that's why you misread it twice? I dodn't know I had that effect on you. Perhaps that's why you so often misread things when arguing with me?

Regardless...

Anyways, Prague Spring used in that context is talking about the suppression of the Czechoslovak Government. My issue was that equating the situation in Cuba, (which is fairly mild,) to the military suppression of a democratically elected government, sounds like someone's saying "damn, I'm so butthurt about Cuba, I'll compare that to the brutal suppression of a democratic government!"

Or, rather, they're not equating them, but simply listing different examples of serious human rights abuses which they have opposed.

And being opposed to a regime responsible for "severely restrict the freedom of expression, assembly, and association of political dissidents" at the same time as one is opposed to the military suppression of a democratically elected government is a laudable thing, and doesn't in any way detract from the organization in question.

Basically, your argument against Freedom House has floundered, and all you are left with is that you don't personally like them for unspecified reasons.

Also using paid progovernment commentators to manipulate online discussions, using takedown requests and forced deletion of content to curb discussion (including being fired from their jobs, barred from universities, or detained if they did not comply), having dramatically expanded its surveillance apparatus (in Russia the hacking into the phone of an opposition activist was deemed to be legal) in addition to the blacklist law.

So the fact that many people are getting online doesn't negate the abuses by the Russian government.

Strawman. I argued that the situation was improving, because more people have more access to the Internet, which is the freest form of speech in Russia. I never argued that it was ideal. Instead of simply accepting that as a fact, you continue with your "hurr durr Russia sucks" tirade. If a situation improves from terrible to semi terrible, that's still an improvement.

OK, we can agree that the situation in Russia is semi-terrible.

Of course it does.

Or are you saying that you're mostly spamming now?

In order for an opinion to really matter, you need more than someone replying to you out of sheer boredom, who's shocked by your failure to understand my argument, i.e. things are better now than in 1999 in terms of Human Rights in Russia. Or did you think that the word "really" was used there as an accident?

OK, so "spamming" it is. Not surprised that you couldn't field an argument, but nice to know.

So you have no objections to the points presented. Noted.

My objection is that they're irrelevant. Or to put it in terms you would understand: "Objection. Relevance. Sustained." Esta Clado? There are 634 million websites. Over 37 million websites in Russian. Of these, less than one percent is censored. Compare the 37 million different views to what you get on TV. That's a huge improvement, and that's all I was saying.

So the Centre for Law and Democracy is irrelevant [no reason given], and censorship is irrelevant because the authorities aren't censoring a sufficient number of websites, overly broad and illegitimate bans on content is irrelevant because you get more censorship on TV than on the internet?

Dude, your understanding of the concept of freedom of expression sucks. Truly.

They're burning books by jewish authors in the street, but that's OK because you can still read books by non-jews. And we have access to more books today than we did in 1918, so it's a huge improvement! Besides, it's all irrelevant because radio broadcasts are being censored more than books. Yes, newspapers are being shut down, but there's so many of them nowadays anyway!

Fantastic line of thinking!

You should stop using words you obviously don't understand.

Considering my argument is that things have been improving, whereas you're the one who's extremely pathetically pretending that things aren't awesome. I never argued that they were. In fact, Russia still has quite a bit to go in terms of Civil Rights; I'm just not an idiot who expects overnight improvements in a country of over one hundred million people that just went though and extremely turbulent period, and has an extremely cautious government trying to handle getting used to a complex medium.

So it's extremely pathetic to pretend that things aren't awesome - yet you would say things aren't awesome? Huh.

Anyway, we agree that the actions of the Russian government has a detrimental effect on freedom of expression in Russia. Good.

Actually, you didn't say anything of the sort, being to busy to dismiss the quote out of hand.

It's rather hard to take someone who equates a country, where roughly half the population have access to over 37 million different views in their own language, to Zimbabwe, seriously. It means they're either joking, or not very bright.

Or they have a better understanding on what freedom of expression actually means. The view that countries with more censorship have more freedom of expression than countries with less censorship is simply wrong.

I forgot - you think that providing sources for an argument is the opposite of backing up your argument - hance your unwillingness to do so.

No, I just think that one shouldn't take Freedom House seriously when talking about Russia.

Disregarding the fact that you haven't provided a single compelling reason as to why Freedom House shouldn't be taken seriously, it is interesting that my numerous other credible and well-informed sources are ignored. I know you don't like dealing with sources, but that's a problem you really should get help with if you are going to post something beyond vapid spam.

Doesn't change the fact that the system lacks transparency, proper judicial oversight, and already has a history of being abused.

Whereas in 1999 Russian media was extremely transparent, had superb judicial oversight, and was never, ever, ever abused /sarcasm

So they're currently trying to turn the internet into what the media was in 1999 then?

I provided a source that the news coverage that 90 percent of Russians had access to in 1999 was tightly controlled, and definitely did not have the 37 million viewpoints available to us today in Russian, and over 430 million overall viewpoints, which are now available to roughly half of the population of Russia.

Quite. Which doesn't change the fact that the current system, when it comes to censorwhip of the internet, lacks transparency, proper judicial oversight, and already has a history of being abused.

That's nice dear, but your opinion doesn't really matter

When it comes to Russia, my opinion matters quite a bit more than yours.

You flatter yourself without any basis in reality. Par for the course.

I know RuNet, I know how to navigate it, and how to influence it on minor issues. As for you, when it comes to Russia, you're about as effective as Hippo. Actually no, Hippo's more effective than you, since he can be entertaining. Hippo, I apologize for comparing you to Gravlen.

Nevertheless, I'm correct, and you are wrong. As my "source pimping" repeatedly has shown.

And how many were blocked in 2008?

Also less than one percent.

The correct answer is: Fewer than today. More websites are blocked and censored under Putin today than under Putin then. Curiously enough, the increased blocking and increased censorship coincides with his increasingly authoritarian ways, and his increased abuse of power.

And if I should suggest that someone take part in an unauthorized demonstration in Russia, this site would be in violation. Were I to suggest that homosexual relationships are normal, the site runs into trouble if a student accesses it from school.

Here's the thing: prior to Putin taking power, 3.1 million had internet access, meaning that for the extreme majority of the population, access to these websites simply didn't exist. That's also my point. More people have more forums, where they can express their views. That leads to more freedom of speech, even if a state regulates a part of it, and suppresses less than one percent of it.

See, here's the thing: The government is actively suppressing political views today. More people have access to more websites where they can express their views, but if those views aren't in line with the Government they risk sanctions, harassment, blocking, and worse. That is not more freedom of expression.

So concerns about human rights abuses = "crap". Hmmm...

Nope, your pathetic strawmen are crap.

That's why you deleted quotes from Reporters sans frontières concerning freedom of expression in Russia? Because the quotes, highlighting concerns about the conditions for freedom of expression in Russia, are pathetic strawmen?

Again you seem to not grasp the concept of strawmen...

My point was that more people have more forums, where they can express their views. That leads to more freedom of speech, even if a state regulates a part of it, and suppresses less than one percent of it. You talking about that one percent nonstop is a crappy response to my argument.

Not when your argument is incorrect.

I was responding to the statement that "with the exception of Gay Rights and a couple of other stuff, Human Rights have been improving in Russia under Putin".

And yet you failed to comprehend that "improving under Putin" meant improving from 1999 until today?

And you have failed to understand that Human Rights have not been improving in Russia under Putin. There might have been an upswing a decade ago, but currently - and for years now - they have been in decline.

Please explain how I'm ignoring any context.

The context of my argument is that between 1999 and 2013, Human Rights, as a whole, improved. You're citing an organization that says that in 2009, or whenever, Russia was placed on the "under surveillance", along with Italy or Australia, one of them. And some other states. However, in order to actually address my argument, you have to take Russia in 1999 and compare that to Russia in 2013, and show how Russia did not improve between those two dates.

I see I actually gave you too much credit, since you actually are making the "Things are better than under Stalin" argument.

Russia might have dipped between 2007 and 2010.

Try between 2007 and present day.

That doesn't negate the fact that Russia improved between 1999 and 2013, and that's all I'm arguing. You're using this to pimp your sources, such as reporters without borders and freedom house,

Don't forget Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Democracy Index, and Centre for Law and Democracy. I am amused that backing up my argument with reports and observations by credible NGO's is somehow "pimping sources" as if it was a bad thing.

I wish I was really pimping my sources. I would love to get paid for linking to those organizations. It's always nice to spread facts and enlighten people while getting paid for it.

while allegedly whoring for attention.

Only you are alleging that, mind. Strange argument to make, too. Posting on NSG is now whoring for attention, allegedly?

Also, pimps and whores? I think your mind is wandering.

None of that actually addresses my argument that more people have more forums, where they can express their views. That leads to more freedom of speech, even if a state regulates a part of it, and suppresses less than one percent of it.

It's a simplistic argument, and it's wrong. As I've explained above, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom of speech actually is. Freedom of speech protects your speech against the government, and if the government can regulate and censor what you're saying then you don't have actual freedom of speech. It doesn't matter that you are free to say what the government accepts on a million different forums. More venues are simply not sufficient, if government regulation, censorship and harassment prevent true freedom of expression.

As an illustration: If you can post on the heavily moderated and regulated websites WeLoveDearLeader.com, AllHailElJefe.com, TheGovernmentIsRight.com and YesBigBrother.org, while the website DissentingOpinions.com is blocked, it's naïve to think that since you now have 4 different forums to post in instead of only WeLoveDearLeader.com you have more freedom of expression than before. Being able to send funny cat pictures to all of your friends and debate the movie Gravity means little if the government prevents you from expressing unpopular or dissenting political opinions. You have to do a qualitative analysis as well as a quantitative one, and the perspective have to be that you start with full freedom of expression (hence the term itself) and proceed to have the government introduce only reasonable and necessary limitations.

So the average under Putin is 2, and last year 2 journalists were murdered. That's not a decline.

Prior to Putin's reforms, and average of 5 journalists were killed a year. After Putin's reforms, an average of 2 journalists were killed a year. Sane people refer to this as a decline.

Under Putin, 2 journalists were killed a year. Last year 2 journalists were murdered. That's not a decline, that's the status quo. Sorry, I wish it wasn't, but it is.

Sure, you can move the goalposts.

I claimed that journalists were safer, and provided a source showing that journalists were safer from being killed. And yet you failed to grasp that, and claimed that repeating my argument stating that journalists were safer from being killed, would be moving the goalposts.

No, you claimed that journalists have been rather safe since 2010, and provided a source which didn't account for threats, violence and harassment. So I showed you that violence remains a big problem, and that while physical attacks on journalists are frequent they usually go unpunished. At that point I believe I was indirectly pimping the Glasnost Defence Foundation.

That said, let's revisit this quote from RSF:

As many journalists constantly feel unsafe, they tend to censor themselves.

You don't need to kill journalists to make them be quiet.

One that was not warranted by the original post by Oneracon.

That could be because I was responding to a follow up question by Gallup.

I'm not Gallup, so you're now confusing two conversations, is that it?

Which is pretty much wortless since we should be examining the situation under Putin. I.e. the last 13 years.

The only thing that's worthless in this thread, IMHO, are your posts, which is why you're going back on my ignore list after this reply, as I really don't want to pander to your source pimping program.

Heh, I like it. Of course, you're mostly unable to provide any sources for your claims, and when you do it's usually poor quality sources (blogs like Darussophile.com included) which still usually don't support - or often directly contravenes - your argument, so I can understand if you're feeling that small tinge of envy.

If you want to examine Putin's improvements, it's important to examine Russia in the state that it was when Putin became the president. When I call someone to improve my house, I look at the house before his improvements, and after his improvements.

And when that repairman suddenly decides to break your waterpipes because, why the hell not, then it's time to kick him out even if he did do a nice job at fixing the railing on the staircase.

The cynical part is when he manipulates the elections.

I'd say something, but you'd just use this as an opportunity to pimp your sources in a manner that's unrelated to my response to Gallup.

Oh, ooh, let's play Pimp My Source!

Russia's leading independent election monitoring organization, Golos, said the March 4 presidential election was not free or fair, relative to either international electoral standards or the Russian constitution.

http://www.ndi.org/golos-russia-elections

Remember Golos? They were the independent NGO (you would call them "Foreign Agents" since they got money from the Norwegian Helsinki Committee as part of its Andrei Sakharov Freedom prize - money that was turned down by Golos) the Russian government forced to disband after they had made the declaration.

That's what comes of Putin's cynical manipulations.

You are aware that both Yeltsin and Putin could manipulate the elections, right? The one doesn't rule out the other.

Of course. I just find it more likely, much more likely, that there was less of election manipulation with the guy with 60 percent approval wins, than when a guy with 8 percent approval rating wins, considering that their opponent was the same guy, Zyuganov, which is why I find it rather laughable when certain Western Media, similar to the ones you're pimping, calls the eight percent election a democracy, and the 60 percent election an exit for democracy.

Of course, none of this is an argument against the well-documented claim that Putin rigged the election.

And the New York Times is similar to NGOs? Who knew! That's got to be a compliment to the newspaper!

The deterioration we've seen in recent years is not improvement. If you want to look back to the 90's, well, there's more internet cencorship and regulation in Russia today than in 1999. Much more.

You do comprehend that having access to regulated media where you can express yourself is actually better than not having access to any media, where you can express yourself, right? As your post shows, clearly, you don't comprehend that.

Your argument is wrong, as have been shown repeatedly above.

I don't know where you see this going. We might go round after round but I don't think we'll make any progress - especially since any sources provided apparently will be ignored.

I paid attention to the sources that had numbers. But sources that peddle the hurr durr Russia sucks mantra, been there, heard that, yeah, I know that Russia sucks in terms of Civil Rights, I really don't need a source that repeats that ad nauseum.

Good. Common ground. Russia sucks in terms of Civil Rights, I agree.

Anyways, after wasting my time on that failure of your post, I realized that your posts are simply unworthy of my time, and that I was 100 percent right to place you on my ignore list. And now you're going back there.

When you next take me off it, I would like to see you be able to piece together a well-sourced argument.

I won't be mad if you pimp any sources. In fact, I would welcome it.

[72o]

Putin got some attention for stupid comments he made, urging gays to 'leave the children alone', claiming that europeans want to legalize paedophilia and the usual braindead drivel about how the west should respect different cultures. SUch a great idea to have the olympics in russia.

[Lyttenburgh]

Putin said: "What, are we supposed to follow along like obedient lapdogs, towards whatever consequences await? We have our own traditions, our own culture. We have respect for all of our international partners and ask that they also respect our own traditions and culture."

Yeah, a truly horrible and un-democratic thing to say.

PS

Also. Much quoted Putin's pharse that "West endorses pedofilia"

According to BBC News a Dutch political party Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) since at lest 2006 strives to lover an ege of consent from 16 to 12 (both in regards of voting and having sex) and want legalise zooophilia and child pornography.

[Baltenstein]

Putin got some attention for stupid comments he made, urging gays to 'leave the children alone'

Vlad, my man, better practice what you preach.

[Gravlen]

Putin got some attention for stupid comments he made, urging gays to 'leave the children alone', claiming that europeans want to legalize paedophilia and the usual braindead drivel about how the west should respect different cultures. SUch a great idea to have the olympics in russia.

Putin also added that Russia was more liberal than some other countries, claiming that in certain US states homosexuality was still punishable by law.

So I guess doing a basic internet search is too much to expect from Putin...

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

Olympic Ice Hockey will be the best.

[The Genoese Cromanatum]

It's in a volatile region of a tyrannical country that oppresses gays and harbors criminals like Snowden who should face trial.

For the love of christ someone tell me this is satire.

Please.

[The Genoese Cromanatum]

Putin got some attention for stupid comments he made, urging gays to 'leave the children alone', claiming that europeans want to legalize paedophilia and the usual braindead drivel about how the west should respect different cultures. SUch a great idea to have the olympics in russia.

Putin also added that Russia was more liberal than some other countries, claiming that in certain US states homosexuality was still punishable by law.

So I guess doing a basic internet search is too much to expect from Putin...

Putin is in the right there, actually. I am from Virginia, and it is within this state's law that all forms of "sodomy" are illegal.

[Gallup]

It's in a volatile region of a tyrannical country that oppresses gays and harbors criminals like Snowden who should face trial.

For the love of christ someone tell me this is satire.

Please.

Nope.

[Shofercia]

Putin said: "What, are we supposed to follow along like obedient lapdogs, towards whatever consequences await? We have our own traditions, our own culture. We have respect for all of our international partners and ask that they also respect our own traditions and culture."

Yeah, a truly horrible and un-democratic thing to say.

PS

Also. Much quoted Putin's pharse that "West endorses pedofilia"

According to BBC News a Dutch political party Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) since at lest 2006 strives to lover an ege of consent from 16 to 12 (both in regards of voting and having sex) and want legalise zooophilia and child pornography.

An 80 year old should fuck a 15 year old, if they both consent, no matter what society says; y u no support human rights? /sarcasm

Putin got some attention for stupid comments he made, urging gays to 'leave the children alone'

Vlad, my man, better practice what you preach.

Mere kissing of same gender has always been allowed in Russia, at least as far back as I can remember.

It's in a volatile region of a tyrannical country that oppresses gays and harbors criminals like Snowden who should face trial.

For the love of christ someone tell me this is satire.

Please.

Nope. Gallup actually supported Putin, prior to Putin offering amnesty to Snowden. But Gallup's smart enough to realize that going "Russia ebul for not going after Snowden" won't actually matter to NSGers, so he's going after Putin for Human Rights. Same old tactic really, that's been reduced, reused and recycled.

So, news is coming out that the Russian Duma has passed a law banning information on Homosexuality...

Yes! A move in the right direction.

Please tell me how it feels to have Russia and Putin on your side...

Not very good but I will take what I get.

Then Snowden gets asylum, and suddenly Gallup starts caring about Human Rights in Russia. Also, ever since I mistakenly started debating with Gravlen, and ended up placing him on my ignore list, for what I thought was him making very annoying posts and not being very informative, his count in Putin posts jumped. For instance, if you do a search about Putin on Gravlen's post history, you will find that he's had 2 posts on that in 2009, a post relating to Snowden, a string of responses directed at me in 2013, and from then it was on. It's like Gravlen suddenly discovered Putin. Amusing really. Maybe I should apply the Gravlen method to the Gallup flip-flop, and see how many times I can mention Iran-Contra, HUD Rigging, Lobbying Scandal, EPA Scandal, Inslaw Affair, Savings & Loan Crisis, etc.

As soon as I found out what that atrocious law truly does, I became heavily critical of it, Ris can attest to that. But with such flip flopping, one must indeed wonder how many of those going after Russia for Human Rights, are doing it for other reasons, be it Snowden, or something else. The problem with such "ardent" critics, is that in an arena where it actually matters, not simply an online forum, but an actual PR battle, the Kremlin PR lobby can attack on at least three grounds:

1. Flip-flopping after the Snowden case
2. Going after Human Rights in Russia, but not in Saudi Arabia, where the violations are much more atrocious
3. Having their own personal vendettas/agendas/etc.

The Kremlin cannot win this debate on Gay Rights alone, but such flip-flopping does give the Kremlin plenty of ammunition to sidetrack it. Maybe you will even get a thank you card, but probably not, since I doubt the Kremlin knows about your existence.

[Cosmopoles]

Yeah, a truly horrible and un-democratic thing to say.

PS

Also. Much quoted Putin's pharse that "West endorses pedofilia"

According to BBC News a Dutch political party Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) since at lest 2006 strives to lover an ege of consent from 16 to 12 (both in regards of voting and having sex) and want legalise zooophilia and child pornography.

I don't really see the connection here. What does the existence of a party which existed for four years, had a grand total of three members and participated in no elections have to do with accusing the West of endorsing pedophilia?

[Gravlen]

Putin also added that Russia was more liberal than some other countries, claiming that in certain US states homosexuality was still punishable by law.

So I guess doing a basic internet search is too much to expect from Putin...

Putin is in the right there, actually. I am from Virginia, and it is within this state's law that all forms of "sodomy" are illegal.

And if you do a basic Google search, you find this:

On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilians and reversed the Court's 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld Georgia's sodomy law.

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

The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously ruled on January 14, 2005, that the Virginia fornication law violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Ziherl

Google is still your friend. And Google shows us that Virginia's sodomy law and the fornication law both have been struck down.