Slashdot Mirror

Where is this track record of the Swedish justice system as subservient to US interests? You do realize that Sweden gladly turned a blind eye to The Pirate Bay and US copyright concerns until The Pirate Bay until the founders hacked Swedish systems. And they weren't charged for any copyright infringement.

http://rt.com/news/pirate-bay-hacking-fraud-003/

I didn't accuse Assange of threating to kill someone. I stated that his former partner made that accusation. I stated a fact. I didn't claim to have direct knowledge if it was accurate. But it came from his former partner and supposed best friend. It should be noted that several people close to Assange left Wikileaks to start a forked project because they supported the ideal, but not him.

The third accusation isn't bullshit. It was widely reported.

http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9874-news-assange-falls-out-with-rights-groups-as-us-presses-allies-for-investigations.html

You state that Wikileaks was very useful for mankind, but he refused to release tons of leaks given to him. His partner outlined how the entire purpose of Wikileaks was to funnel money to Assange, and that the ideals of transparency and whistleblowing were secondary.

You may also be interested in this link:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/07/18665978.php

Here's a news article published two days after the attack on the 17th.

http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9231/

If there was a "mass-government coverup" you wouldn't have known about the civilian deaths until the cables were released. Or is the disagreement on numbers all your concerned about? One is too many.

This is part of the US's PUBLICLY REVEALED campaign to discredit WikiLeaks. The way to do so? Ad Hominem. Make the story about the messenger - over and over, again.

It wouldn't matter if WikiLeaks were fronted by Charles Manson - that's not the point of the disclosures.

But once more, you fall for the legerdemain.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39729526
http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9948-news-a-comment-pentagon-campaign-to-discredit-wikileaks-downshifts.html
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/news/gt/blog/us-plan-to-discredit-wikileaks-leaked/?cs=40078
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/time-o25.shtml

According to this you are wrong:

http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9627-background-gulf-disaster-recalls-ixtoc-1-blowout-in-1979-1980.html

This would be the 2nd time a BOP has failed.

Far better the douchebaggery of relatively SANE politicians, as opposed to the INSANE fantasies of the acolytes of the Inerrant Thought of Chairman Rand. Not to mention the pure and unadulterated douchebaggery of the meth-addicted fifth rate Nietzsche of the mini-malls herself: Fuck the Indian Savages!

"Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existnece; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights."

Or didn't you bother to actually READ the "Scourge of Public Libraries" by the aforementioned libertarian dipshit?

And you sound like a typical ad-hominem slinging ignoramus.

I suggest you check out the BBC's excellent "The Power of Nightmares", which "argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries -- and particularly American Neo-Conservatives -- in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies."

Google Video: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Here is a summary of the film's main arguments.

You forgot the part where Bush signed-off on a June 2005 invasion of Iran.

Do you want links to right-wing sites similar to the left-wing sites you use as your only authority? ... Let me know if you want them.

You hold on to your ludicrous claim about FAIR despite not providing any evidence or even one thing they've done you can link to and criticize specifically, and I hold on to my claim that you are a friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden, you go on to point out how that's all babble, and I completely agree... and then you go right back to babbling.

So, babbling like a little baby, unable to make a better argument than that you should be able to ignore what you can't defend against... You are lost, AtariAmarok. You have reduced yourself to the status of a squealing baby who simply shouts "no."

You may love the sound of your babbling, but believe me, it only sounds good to you.

I don't think it would have much effect on cable news if applied to it.

You should have chosen a different sentence to quote. This is one you actually didn't answer. Now, onward to where you simply retread things that have already been questioned:

Fox would try to satisfy it by including token liberals on its shows.

Fox would lose with this nonsense. Put 5 democrats and 5 republicans in a room and tell them something is fair if 2/3 of them agree. The nonsense stops. Fox included.

someone like Alan Colmes

I notice you are ignoring I already pointed out that Hannity and Colmes is not a fair show; this too has been extensively commented on.

NPR liberals

Oh god, no - the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is Invading!!

Is this much different?

Your imagination? From reality?

Yes!

have the government force them to give 3 hours to a ratings dog

Hah.

Mr. Unbiased and trustworthy here thinks having someone come on to answer the various ridiculous charges Limbaugh makes would be bad for ratings.

I've mentioned Moore, not

And I said "will" not "have"

They do not coordinate it with others or take marching orders.

Repeat after me.

There is no vast left-wing conspiracy. There is no vast left-wing conspiracy. There is no vast left-wing conspiracy.

Disney and GE are not trying to turn your babies liberal. LOL!

The same is true for right-wing media.

Actually, you are wrong once again. It is most definitely not true.

Right wing media, from Rupert Murdoch's holdings to the many, many other groups, is extensively coordinated. This is well documented, and basically an "open secret," in that conservatives don't often bother to deny the roles and hierarchies operating within their movement.

Do you really imagine all the conservative media outlets you see synchronize their points of view so well, and hammer out talking points so simultaneously by coincidence?

This coordination is necessary for a conspiracy theory.

Well, you said it...

Where have I claimed such? I haven't, and you know it.

Oh oh oh the liberals, they control Disney and GE and the New York Times, they're all out to get me, but I never said they have it coordinated, so it's not a vast left-wing conspiracy!

Bring my tinfoil hat! I need to protect my brain from dangerous truth rays and common sense particles.

Just look at yourself. Seriously, just look at yourself.

You are really sad.

It hasn't been all bad, though. You've given all of us an extensive study in an interesting new alternative to rational thought.