Growing similarities between the USSR and USA (As told to me by 2 former Soviets)

[Deleted]

Every single time Obama says something controversial it's always 'taken out of context' because he couldn't ever possibly mean what he says or understand what he's saying. lol

"I support Gay Marriage."

Meanwhile in the Bible Belt; "HE MUST BE A GOD HATING HEATHEN."

[zerocarbs]

Stop arguing a fucking slippery slope (I guess it is what your argument is based off). More likely than not they won't fucking do it without a good god damn reason. Do i agree with it? No.
Would i like it if it happened to me? No.
Can i see why it is there? Yes.

It is there for extreme cases where it is, go for broke, get this shit under control before it can get worse (Mass murder kind of worse, not some "OMG He stole a potato" kind of worse).

I remember when they promised the Patriot Act would only be used on foreign terrorists. Now they use it for the war on drugs.

---------- Post added 2013-05-16 at 07:17 PM ----------

Try actually listening to his speech. It was perfectly clear what he said if people were paying attention and not looking for more ways to shit on him.

I do listen to him. Apparently he never means what he says.

Obama loves collectivist rhetoric which is in direct contrast to individualism.

[s_bushido]

Every single time Obama says something controversial it's always 'taken out of context' because he couldn't ever possibly mean what he says or understand what he's saying. lol

I don't think you understand what "out of context" means.

[Endus]

How is anything I've said emotional rhetoric?

Because you're making emotional, unjustified claims, like taking a statement that X is an infringement of rights, and claiming this means Americans' rights are being reduced wholesale, overall.

That's fearmongering. You're trying to instill an emotional fear reaction in those reading your post by framing your points in such a way as to ignore the greater reality and present a false front.

How have Americans' rights not been infringed more than in the past? Warrantless searches for example. In the past the only time the requirement for a warrant has been waived were in instances of probable cause, hot pursuit, imminent destruction of evidence, or emergencies. That has ALWAYS been the case and reasonably so.

So there were always a host of justifications for warrantless searches, and they added another. This isn't even an infringement, it's an adaptation of existing legislation.

Now our government keeps call records of every call involving a US recipient and has the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance on any citizen.

And here you misquote your own sources. This is exactly what I mean by "presenting a false front".

The call records only kept caller info and details about length of the call, nothing about the content.
And more egregiously, the warrantless wiretapping thing was not about having the authority to wiretap "any citizen". It only allowed them to monitor communications between American citizens and those outside the US, not internal communications. And it's not ongoing; your own link should have reminded you that the program was ended in 2007.

So you focus on its existence, which you want to protray as an infringement of rights, but not its cancellation, which by your own argument would mean an improvement on the people's freedoms. You ignore this because it does not fit the conclusion you wish to draw. You ignore the facts, in your own links, to manufacture a false front.

In effect, if the US government wishes to prosecute you for something, they don't have to serve you with a warrant at all. They can obtain a warrant to break into your home, search your place and leave and NEVER be required to inform you.

Again, not an infringement. If they have a warrant, they don't need your permission or to ensure your notification. They never have. If you're at home, they have to present it to you to prove their authority to enter, but if you aren't, they don't need to wait for you to return so they can issue you the warrant, before they search. They just open the door and search. That's how warrants work.

[Kasierith]

I'm afraid I just don't see the fucking difference between the way the USSR trounced its citizens' rights and the way the US government trounces its citizens' rights.

Please. You have my attention. Explain to me the difference and why I should think it's acceptable to hear about how the US government is permitted to search my person, home and correspondences without a warrant and be appalled when I read about how the Soviets did the same.

And I don't see a difference between a Mongolian desire for finance through imperialism and American desire for finance through imperialism..... except that when you put that basic aspect aside, they are completely and totally different.

As for how they are different, alright lets see.... few hundred options, all of which would be applicable in this situation.... ah! Political unrest/open internal warfare at the beginning of the Soviet Union vs political stability and harmony in the US. Will that do it? How about time lines... last I checked, 2013 is a different year than 1922. That is a long, long time for cultures that weren't even remotely similar to start with to change. How about... capitalism. Does the US have capitalism? Did the Russian Empire/early USSR? I could go on, for quite a while actually.. but even with those three, trying to tie a comparison between the US and the USSR is pretty ridiculous.

But let's move on. You are upset and making the accusation that there are infractions done by the US government against the people, thus violating the contract that is the Bill of Rights and the amendments following it. This is a legitimate and arguable point. There is no reason for you to drag in a false equivalency and essentially sabotage your own point by the ridiculousness of your assertions.

[Luuth]

Yeah, I asked a guy I know who used to live in the USSR if America is anything like that and he laughed in my face and asked me if I was serious. I said yeah, I read it on the internet in a World of Warcraft forum. He said: what is world of warcraft? I asked him if he was serious? He said yeah. He went on to tell me that America is a lot different than the Soviet Union was, and he even looked kind of insulted that I had tried to draw a comparison between the two. I asked if he would go back to Russia if it went back to the way it was when he left, and he just looked at me like I was an idiot (and I felt like an idiot by this point). So, apparently not all former citizens of the USSR feel the same way. I guess it takes all kinds.

[Deleted]

I remember when they promised the Patriot Act would only be used on foreign terrorists. Now they use it for the war on drugs.

I thought the Patriot Act only covered that of immigrants, which i guess could be used for the war on drugs, but it also assumes that the vast majority of drug dealers are immigrants. I don't know if they are or not, i haven't read up on the subject, maybe you could elaborate on its usage for the war on drugs?

---------- Post added 2013-05-16 at 08:20 PM ----------

Yeah, I asked a guy I know who used to live in the USSR if America is anything like that and he laughed in my face and asked me if I was serious. I said yeah, I read it on the internet in a World of Warcraft forum. He said: what is world of warcraft? I asked him if he was serious? He said yeah. He went on to tell me that America is a lot different than the Soviet Union was, and he even looked kind of insulted that I had tried to draw a comparison between the two. I asked if he would go back to Russia if it went back to the way it was when he left, and he just looked at me like I was an idiot (and I felt like an idiot by this point). So, apparently not all former citizens of the USSR feel the same way. I guess it takes all kinds.

See, this kind of evidence (just like the OP bare in mind) is Anecdotal. Two people said something is like something else? IT MUST BE TRUE.

[Laize]

Because you're making emotional, unjustified claims, like taking a statement that X is an infringement of rights, and claiming this means Americans' rights are being reduced wholesale, overall.

That's fearmongering. You're trying to instill an emotional fear reaction in those reading your post by framing your points in such a way as to ignore the greater reality and present a false front.



So there were always a host of justifications for warrantless searches, and they added another. This isn't even an infringement, it's an adaptation of existing legislation.



And here you misquote your own sources. This is exactly what I mean by "presenting a false front".

The call records only kept caller info and details about length of the call, nothing about the content.
And more egregiously, the warrantless wiretapping thing was not about having the authority to wiretap "any citizen". It only allowed them to monitor communications between American citizens and those outside the US, not internal communications. And it's not ongoing; your own link should have reminded you that the program was ended in 2007.

So you focus on its existence, which you want to protray as an infringement of rights, but not its cancellation, which by your own argument would mean an improvement on the people's freedoms. You ignore this because it does not fit the conclusion you wish to draw. You ignore the facts, in your own links, to manufacture a false front.



Again, not an infringement. If they have a warrant, they don't need your permission or to ensure your notification. They never have. If you're at home, they have to present it to you to prove their authority to enter, but if you aren't, they don't need to wait for you to return so they can issue you the warrant, before they search. They just open the door and search. That's how warrants work.

1) I specifically said (and it's right in the quoted text) that the database was of call records. Not call RECORDINGS. That doesn't change the fact that the NSA has, very much in fact, allowed the executive branch to warrantlessly wiretap calls.

2) This isn't even a REASON for warrantless searches beyond their own discretion. In legal fact this means that any search they conduct will be admissible in a court of law because there are no exigent circumstances they are required to prove (Hot pursuit, probable cause, etc).

3) If you read the frigging article you would see that such data is incredibly useful and can be used to determine if someone changes their phone number in addition to linking everyone who calls a certain number to them in the event they are under investigation. This information has always been available to law enforcement if they had a warrant or subpoena. Not anymore.

4) And again you ignore the real use of a Sneak and Peek warrant, which is to gather grounds (where none else exists) to obtain a TRADITIONAL warrant.

---------- Post added 2013-05-16 at 07:29 PM ----------

I thought the Patriot Act only covered that of immigrants, which i guess could be used for the war on drugs, but it also assumes that the vast majority of drug dealers are immigrants. I don't know if they are or not, i haven't read up on the subject, maybe you could elaborate on its usage for the war on drugs?

---------- Post added 2013-05-16 at 08:20 PM ----------



See, this kind of evidence (just like the OP bare in mind) is Anecdotal. Two people said something is like something else? IT MUST BE TRUE.

The original patriot act did, in fact, only focus on immigrants. It was eventually expanded to include US citizens outside US territory and finally, in 2011, to any US citizen period.

[rootfifth]

Is America becoming more and more like USSR? Yes.

Are we becoming more like USSR because communism? No.

We are giving up our rights because of 9/11 both under Bush and Obama at an astounding rate but it isn't because socialist commies are infiltrating our government, it is because hard right wingers, Obama included, are infiltrating our government. Both parties outside of about 5-10 representatives in congress are hard right wingers in every way imaginable except for a few handful of social issues. They parade these minor social issues around in the media to distract us from the fact that bribery is legal through campaign contributions, bankers can foreclose on property without legal justification, Hollywood is trying to destroy the internet, oil companies destroying the environment, and much more designed to screw over the middle and lower class while making a select few individuals so much money that they don't know what to do with it. Yes we are becoming more like the USSR but not because of Communism, but because of the tyranny that that country went through.

[Deleted]

I always thought the USA is heading more towards a control(dictatorship if you will) of companies and powerful lobby groups. Basically whomever has most power financially wins.

I will base this on several aspects:
-bigger companies can't fail anymore, it has been proved that if a company has enough people employed they will be bailed out. However, this does not force them to actually start working, as there's been some leaders of these big companies who took advantage of the bailouts to continue their lavish lifestyle like nothing had happened.
-big companies also have a huge cover-up power, for example remember the accident with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? The company did not escape... yet there was another oil spill in same region only last year... and the company that did it did escape. Why? Because it was smaller and wasn't as obvious. Another example is american companies who outsource their production to Bangladesh or similar countries so they can exploit the people there like slaves.
-marketing, let's be honest now, in a way marketing is a form of propaganda, the company is trying to convince you their product is better then the product of the competition and that you need it now. Sometimes they're right (rarely), but most often then not it's just a means to trick you to buy stuff you don't actually need. That's exactly how propaganda works. And it works, for example look at the last 2 iPhones, remember when the reporters went out on the street just before the launch of iPhone 5 and asked people to compare it with iPhone 4.5? They all said it's lighter, faster, smaller, bigger screen etc, heck, one even had an iPhone 4.5 at him and still said the reporter's phone was lighter and faster... people have been fooled by marketing and they fell for it.
-lobby groups, it's no secret that in the US major lobby groups (like the guns association for example, don't want to start a debate about guns, just giving an example) support politicians. Yet, in return, when those politicians get to office, they repay the debts by giving special stuff to the lobby groups that supported them. They also carry their messages, thus helping in the propaganda of the companies. There are some examples of substances dangerous to humans being approved by the states after they were visited by important people in a company using those or by a lobby group representing that company. Even CISPA, ACTA and all those, they're all supported by whom? The people? Hell no, they're supported by the companies, even if they damage the people. So it's not as it to say they'd help both people and companies, they're for the companies against the people. And look how far they got? How's CISPA doing, heard they crossed the first chamber last time I heard about it?

Overall, companies and lobby groups already rule the USA, which, although it might upset some people, makes your country veer closer and closer to fascism. There's other similarities, spying on people, secret police (hell knows, you have more then one even) the "enemy of the state" sintagma and idea and how said enemies are being treated, the blame put on the minorities by many in power (remember all reports showing that the latino immigrants and the blacks are the blame, saw a few) etc.
You're turning into Mussolini's Italy.

[Felya]

If US was like USSR, these two men would at least interviewed by authorities if not just put in jail for saying this.

[Laize]

And I don't see a difference between a Mongolian desire for finance through imperialism and American desire for finance through imperialism..... except that when you put that basic aspect aside, they are completely and totally different.

As for how they are different, alright lets see.... few hundred options, all of which would be applicable in this situation.... ah! Political unrest/open internal warfare at the beginning of the Soviet Union vs political stability and harmony in the US. Will that do it? How about time lines... last I checked, 2013 is a different year than 1922. That is a long, long time for cultures that weren't even remotely similar to start with to change. How about... capitalism. Does the US have capitalism? Did the Russian Empire/early USSR? I could go on, for quite a while actually.. but even with those three, trying to tie a comparison between the US and the USSR is pretty ridiculous.

But let's move on. You are upset and making the accusation that there are infractions done by the US government against the people, thus violating the contract that is the Bill of Rights and the amendments following it. This is a legitimate and arguable point. There is no reason for you to drag in a false equivalency and essentially sabotage your own point by the ridiculousness of your assertions.

I ended the original post with the following.

While there are important distinctions to make between the USA and USSR (Such as a top-down planned economy vs the free market economy) the similarities are striking and should be taken very seriously. Specifically in the realm of the Constitution becoming increasingly a show piece that the government allows itself to pick and choose which bits it likes vs which it doesn't.

At no point did I say there were no differences or that they weren't marked. You're highlighting only the tangential (as pertains to this conversation) differences between nations such as culture and economy... and choosing instead to ignore the striking similarities between them (which are the only parallels I had drawn). Especially in the areas of criminal (Or "criminal") investigations and such.

[Felya]

I asked if he would go back to Russia if it went back to the way it was when he left, and he just looked at me like I was an idiot (and I felt like an idiot by this point).

Not an idiot, but spoiled. My girlfriend has noted that look on me when ever I hear that shit. It's the same look I get when a kid cries over a toy they are not getting.

[Endus]

1) I specifically said (and it's right in the quoted text) that the database was of call records. Not call RECORDINGS. That doesn't change the fact that the NSA has, very much in fact, allowed the executive branch to warrantlessly wiretap calls.

Not since 2007. Hence the reason your argument falls apart. Have there been some overreaches since then? Sure. But they weren't legal, and they were handled appropriately.

2) This isn't even a REASON for warrantless searches beyond their own discretion. In legal fact this means that any search they conduct will be admissible in a court of law because there are no exigent circumstances they are required to prove (Hot pursuit, probable cause, etc).

No, this is you engaging in a slippery slope fallacy, and pretending that there are not already plenty of circumstances that allow for warrantless searches.

3) If you read the frigging article you would see that such data is incredibly useful and can be used to determine if someone changes their phone number in addition to linking everyone who calls a certain number to them in the event they are under investigation. This information has always been available to law enforcement if they had a warrant or subpoena. Not anymore.

For someone suggesting I read the article, you seem to keep skipping the section on "legality", which goes over in some detail how this occurs in a gray area and is not explicitly against the law in the first place.

And many of these precedents were set down in the '70s and '80s, which again means this is not some recent change.

4) And again you ignore the real use of a Sneak and Peek warrant, which is to gather grounds (where none else exists) to obtain a TRADITIONAL warrant.

No. It's still a search warrant. They already had grounds, to get this warrant approved. They use it for a covert search because they don't want the suspects they're investigating to realize the police are on to them. Again; read your own provided link. This was all spelled out there. They still need to provide grounds to have it approved in the first place. The ONLY difference is that there are not required to knock-and-announce, and they aren't allowed to seize property.

[Kasierith]

I ended the original post with the following.

At no point did I say there were no differences or that they weren't marked. You're highlighting only the tangential (as pertains to this conversation) differences between nations such as culture and economy... and choosing instead to ignore the striking similarities between them (which are the only parallels I had drawn). Especially in the areas of criminal (Or "criminal") investigations and such.

Than I return to my assertion that we had best be preparing for the dark ages. Just because you selectively ignore every single legitimate variable that is important in comparing two countries and hyperfocus on a single point that isn't even correct in itself does not mean there are similarities. You have to twist things around to grotesque shapes before you can even begin drawing similarities.

[Felya]

At no point did I say there were no differences or that they weren't marked. You're highlighting only the tangential (as pertains to this conversation) differences between nations such as culture and economy... and choosing instead to ignore the striking similarities between them (which are the only parallels I had drawn). Especially in the areas of criminal (Or "criminal") investigations and such.

There never needed to be any criminal investigation in USSR to put you away. The fact that you can list ways US government has reach to investigate, is already unlike USSR, because there was no need to prove a case with an investigation. In USSR, of what these two guys said was publicized, they would got to jail without any investigation. The fact that these guys can say it without any fear of retaliation, is already unlike USSR's "criminal" investigation.

[Endus]

You're highlighting only the tangential (as pertains to this conversation) differences between nations such as culture and economy... and choosing instead to ignore the striking similarities between them (which are the only parallels I had drawn). Especially in the areas of criminal (Or "criminal") investigations and such.

That's because such "striking similarities" are irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.

A lemon is round and yellow and firm. So is a tennis ball. That doesn't mean you can make lemonade out of tennis balls, despite the "striking similarities" you've chosen to focus on.

[dantian]

Yo dawg, I got a friend who says America's becoming more like Nazi Germany. He used to be German, so we totally have to take his word for it.

Best move to the left, 'murica. No, really, my political alignment has nothing to do with me accepting a ludicrous, moronic proposition as fact.

[Deleted]

That's because such "striking similarities" are irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.

A lemon is round and yellow and firm. So is a tennis ball. That doesn't mean you can make lemonade out of tennis balls, despite the "striking similarities" you've chosen to focus on.

Challenge accepted, can you taste test it?

[Laize]

There never needed to be any criminal investigation in USSR to put you away. The fact that you can list ways US government has reach to investigate, is already unlike USSR, because there was no need to prove a case with an investigation. In USSR, of what these two guys said was publicized, they would got to jail without any investigation. The fact that these guys can say it without any fear of retaliation, is already unlike USSR's "criminal" investigation.

The way it was told to me was that, in the USSR, police were required to obtain a warrant. In practice all this involved was making a call and asking for one, not providing any evidence for its necessity. You were also entitled to a trial in the USSR, after which you would be found guilty.

The laws were there, but so malleable by law enforcement and intelligence and that it was well justified to say there may as well have not been laws in the first place.

How old are you anyway?