Slashdot Mirror
Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban'
DMandPenfold writes "Sarah Palin, who is widely tipped as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda." So that means we should spend billions of dollars and not catch him? Good plan.
Very good interview done within the last few days. Why can't we have this guy running the country, not the bozo teams we get over and over?
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound
Ron Paul is worthless?
He's anti-war.
Anti-global US empire.
Anti-US acting as world's policeman.
And pro-balance the budget and pay off the enormous debt.
I'd like to clone him about 435 times and let them run the Congress.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Palin just lost my vote. I liked her because she managed to balance the budget in Alaska and is supposedly a supporter of the Constitution.
You get that Alaska's budget is balanced thanks to huge oil revenues and a small population and given that the state needs to GIVE the money away just to not appear too self-interested that her "work" as governor has NOTHING to do with it, right? Her constitutional rhetoric is similarly disappointing.
But there are those that are in power (already elected) who feel the same way. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wants to classify wikileaks as a terrorist organization.. I believe that this would make contributing money a federal felony. In addition, the Interpol connection has been ratcheted up. Assange is now on the most wanted list.
It's not just Sarah Palin, there are those in power that are clearly using their power on this matter. Kind of scary, actually. (Though not surprising, considering what Assange is doing).
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
The Taliban is responsible, directly and demonstrably, for a great many deaths, both in the US and abroad.
I'd like to point out the propaganda success here. The Taliban is the former government of Afghanistan. They have never committed international aggression (though I'm sure they did some nasty stuff internally while in power). They are not responsible for deaths outside of Afghanistan. "al Qaeda" is not the same as "The Taliban."
Just keep swimming.
You should be extremely careful what you wish for: Democrats were expressing similar sentiments when Ronald Reagan put himself up for the Republican nomination in 1980.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The Taliban aren't responsible for deaths in the US. They're a local power in Afghanistan, and did not take part in Al Qaeda's activities. The reason the US invaded Afghanistan was for their refusal to extradite Bin Laden, not for any Taliban-led attack.
"In the first big leak, the names of actual informants was leaked and it was reported one later died and a few disappeared."
Citation needed. And if you can provide evidence for this, I bet the DoD would really like to have it too, 'cos they think the number's zero.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
that would be the golden age of comedy in united states.
Read radical news here
Yes, it is.
Alas, it's not one of the Federal government's basic responsibilities. The Constitution pretty clearly outlines what the Feds may do, and what they may not do.
And "wealth redistribution" or "taking care of the poor" isn't on the list of "what the Feds may do".
Which makes it a matter for the individual States. Each of which may handle the matter at hand in any way they desire, so long as what they do doesn't violate either the Federal Constitution or their own Constitution.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Umm, those were very tough races. How about Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Jim DeMint? They are all Tea Party and they won. That's just the senate, the House is full of Tea Party and state governorships and state senates are as well. If all senate seats were up for reelection and if the same proportion swing to Republicans occurred as in those that were, Republicans would have 67 seats in the Senate in addition to the biggest swing in the House since the 30s. You are deluding yourself if you dismiss what happened in 2010 but you are not alone, Democrat Party is doing the same thing as they will find out in 2012.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Yes, it is.
Alas, it's not one of the Federal government's basic responsibilities. The Constitution pretty clearly outlines what the Feds may do, and what they may not do.
And "wealth redistribution" or "taking care of the poor" isn't on the list of "what the Feds may do".
Which makes it a matter for the individual States. Each of which may handle the matter at hand in any way they desire, so long as what they do doesn't violate either the Federal Constitution or their own Constitution.
The Feds are, however, responsible for "[promoting] the general Welfare" (right after providing for the common defense in the preamble) and have the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), which sounds to me like they do in fact have the responsibility and power to redistribute wealth/take care of the poor.
Wow, I'm getting so tired of repeating myself. I wish I'd never posted.
For the last time (you'd know if you switched away from Fox News once in a while), the Obama healthcare reform is budget neutral. The reforms will result in $622 billion in savings over 10 years (preventative care vs emergency care) so there is no wealth redistribution involved.
I won't even comment on the second part regarding tax breaks as I've done this a dozen times already so you can just read my other posts if you are interested.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
I can't believe you're going making me defend Sarah Palin, but the OP is misquoting her.
What she actually said was, "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? [emphasis added]". She then goes on to say "Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen". It's clear she's advocating a legal response, not a military one.
Obama and his crew are EXTREMELY leftist, with respect to what the majority of US citizens want to see in government.
Please provide at least one example, comparing Obama policy versus opinion polls.
Here are two counter-examples:
Health care: polls suggest that Americans are not opposed to single-payer health care. For example: the July 2009 Kaiser Health Tracking Poll.
By contrast, Obama and the Democrats worked against those advocating single-payer:
The plan finally passed by the Democrats was based on the reforms implemented under Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and has many similarities to the bill introduced by Sen. John Chafee (R-RI) in 1993 (with a number of Republican cosponsors).
On Afghanistan, based on polls, Obama seems to be pretty centrist: about half of respondents think the U.S. should not be involved in Afghanistan now, and those opposed to current policy appear to be roughly divided evenly between opposite views.