Slashdot Mirror
Michael Moore Posts Julian Assange's Bail
digitaldc quotes Michael Moore in a story running on the Huffington Post where he says "Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail. Furthermore, I (Michael Moore) am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars."
But a lot of people in the middle and somewhat on the left think he makes some brilliant points.
I applaud Mr. Moore for doing this.
I'm certainly no fan of Assange, but I can't see how being associated with Michael Moore is going to help him or Wikileaks.
Just makes him seem even more like a media whore. Two douches in one box.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I despise Moore as a person. I enthusiastically applaud his work in pulling off the lamb outfit from world governments and corporations.
It's kind of like Mel Gibson...sure, he may be a dick, but he makes awesome movies.
Living With a Nerd
Which for those of us on the fence about Mr. Assange's activities, may have helped us see him as more villain than hero.
So, since he's fat, he's lazy? Piercing insight, that.
I don't care much for Moore, but he's doing the right thing here, so maybe store the venom up for a day when he's not?
Why doesn't Michael Moore just move to a country more to his liking since he clearly hates the one he is a citizen of? Cuba, perhaps?
A lot of people here like this country just the way it is and don't want anyone, Moore, Obama, or anyone else changing it in to something else.
Leave, Michael! You'd be happier, and we'd be happier.
If you think that allowing a government to flat out lie to us is 'loving your country', then I'd personally rather YOU leave. I don't care for Moore, but I care even less for all the sheep begging to be shorn!
Your distaste for Michael Moore is causing you to lobby against THE TRUTH for crying out loud. And I'm sorry, but that's just morally bankrupt.
I do not understand comments like these. I have no reason to dislike him as a person from what I know of his personal life, but lets face it, I do not really know the guy. Hes not my neighbor. I love the professional work he does. There does seem to be allot of FUD attached to his person mainly due to people wanting to discredit him. I find people who believe it do not look deeply into whatever issue is involved.
My problem with him on a personal level is he doesn't let the evidence speak for itself...he seems to find it imperitive to make sure that you know that he's the one saying it.
Like I said, I absolutely support and love the work he does, but the man's need for attention pisses me off.
Living With a Nerd
Although I don't like Michael Moore (he's comparable to a propagandist) he sometimes does the right thing. His mid-90s movie about manufacturing an excuse to declare war (and give the president a boost in popularity) was very good. And this act to bail a Reporter out of jail and protect the Right to a Free Press is also very good.
Without wikileaks we wouldn't know that US Soldiers were killing innocent journalists and children (the Pentagon denied the event happened). That Hillary Clinton was stealing credit card numbers from foreign diplomats. The content of the ACTA treaty to make backing-up your CDs or DVDs or MP3s and illegal act. And on and on and on.
Democracy can not work when the people are kept in the dark about what their public servants are doing.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I am not a Michael Moore fan, but he should be lauded for the action. Hopefully others will follow Mr. Moore's lead and take a stand for freedom of speech.
I enthusiastically applaud his work in pulling off the lamb outfit from world governments and corporations.
What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?
That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.
Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.
Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
I guess he's much like me. I love the US. I love the country, I love the people.
I just hate the government and the way it's run.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He makes some good points, but he makes them incredibly badly. He's the kind of person who could turn 'water is wet' into a controversial statement. Even when he says something that I agree with, he makes me want to argue.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?
That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.
Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.
If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about...right? I mean, that's what they told us with the Patriot Act and warrentless wiretapping, so...
Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?
Can you find me one single recorded instance of anyone over there being killed directly because of the Iraq/Afghanistan war docs?
Living With a Nerd
> Assange is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes involving two women in Sweden.
What annoys me with media is that they twist the sentence above to say that he's wanted for rape charges.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Right, it's the worst atrocities, or nothing. Nobody's supposed to condemn any of the other stuff in between. Certainly they're not supposed to address the issues that they, personally, find important. What the hell would we have then? Freedom? The hell with that.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Moore is a counterpoint to places like Fox News and CNN which screech really loudly their views. They sure as hell aren't letting the evidence speak for itself -- they speak for it, and sometimes, in lieu of it.
I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.
Well, Sarah Palin is no different, really ... just with a different set of biases. Same goes for most of the talking heads on CNN.
Heck, I remember watching some guy on CNN several years ago saying that the crash of 2008 was coming because of all of the crap credit out there. He basically got shouted down by a bunch of arch-conservative guys who believed that it could never happen.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
so this is different from fox news, all the corporate news channels, how ?
Moore works to expose corruption, while corporate media generally helps enable it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.
Living With a Nerd
In line with your logic, I have the brooklyn bridge for sale for you cheap!
Good point. There isn't really a health care crisis in this country and we weren't lied into the Iraq war. Thanks for clearing that up.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I despise Moore as a person. .
Michael Moore went through a mass character assassination to similar to Julian Assange. Note that as the stream of negative publicity backfired as the ulterior motives were exposed and people stopped swallowing so much shit, the pictures attached to news articles changed from an seedy looking, sneering, oily Gollum lookalike into a reasonably normal looking guy. They could both be asshats or great guys, I have no idea but I certainly don't intend to allow two faced news rag peddlers dictate my opinions of anyone.
Lacking the opportunity to meet these people within my normal social circles, I prefer to form my own opinions based upon unedited and unbiased interviews of a reasonable enough length to prevent any contextual manipulation. Sadly that's not how the news will ever portray someone, it doesn't sell so well.
I got disgusted with him after watching a part of Bowling for Columbine where he went to the Shopko (or some other store) where the assailants bought bullets. He then proceeded to badger one of the cashiers at length, insinuating that they bore responsibility for those murders because they sold bullets. That was when I was done with Michael Moore forever. Even if I agreed with his point (which I don't), that's no excuse to badger someone.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Without wikileaks we wouldn't know that US Soldiers were killing innocent journalists and children
That's factually bullshit. Anyone who actually bothered to turn off American Idol and made an effort to follow the war, absolutely knew stuff like this was going on. What wasn't known was some specific details, and for good reason.
Crazies seem to imply that the government is a giant, nebulous, all knowing, conspiracy monster. The simple fact is, you absolutely can point a finger at idiot reporters for the death and kidnapping of additional reporters, contractors, and even soldiers. Furthermore, you can point a finger at them for a additional civil wars breaking out. The civil war is especially noteworthy because it happened as US troops were actively drawing down and handing over powers to Afghanis. Now keep in mind, I'm not strictly talking about Wikileaks here. In Afghanistan, all too often, weeks could have saved hundreds, if not thousands of lives.
I'm not saying people shouldn't know this stuff. But frequently timing is extremely important. Timing shows the immorality of the reporters involved which is extremely hypocritical given that time and time again people are using these same reports to shake a morality finger at the government while in exchange unethically furthering the reporters involved. All too often, reporters have as much blood on their hands as do the government, but hypocritically, no one seems to care. And that's the problem with Assange/Wikileaks, and the many, many reporters who were absolutely complicit, if not an knowing player, the days which led up to the war.
People are all in a hurry to shake their finger at the reports but are standing in line to turn a blind eye to the massive blood on those same reporters hands. Literally. Its hypocrisy and its disgusting.
Factually, it was well known civilians were dying. Factually, it was well known reporters were dying. Factually, it was well known US troops were frequently involved. But contrary to the crazies around here, it was not a conspiracy to murder them. Factually, this stuff has happened in EVERY war. I'm not aware of a single exception. Anyone who is the least bit surprised is completely disconnected from reality. And in exchange for the previously disconnected and now "enlighten", is additional blood on their hands.
Was propaganda in full swing here? Absolutely! Had it worked, would civilians been saved? Absolutely! Had it worked, would military and contractors had been saved? Absolutely? Was it deception to hide more innocent deaths? Absolutely!
Those who believe propaganda can't save lives or isn't important should not participate in this discussion as they are not the least bit equipped to participate. But to be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting carte blanche, rubber stamp, turn a blind eye. I am suggesting, timing is frequently quantifiable as morality.
Moore went on to talk about how Cuba's health care system is amazing. He took a trip to cuba and documented their health care, pristine offices, amazing clinics, etc.
Turns out that's all for show. Cuban citizens REALLY get healthcare in dirty shacks full of maggots and flies. The rich get the pristine hospitals.
Moore is most famous for releasing a film called Farenheit 9/11, a "documentary" about Bush and 9/11 or something... it was 10 years ago, I stopped caring before he released it. Anyway, it was full of hyperbole, misrepresentation, and sensationalism. One fact that got a large amount of attention was that the President was informed of the first attack on his way to a grade school; and that he told the CIA to keep him informed. He spent 7 minutes reading a kid's book to first graders during the attack. This was covered in the film... as if the appropriate response would be to announce to a bunch of first graders that the nation has come under attack, or something; more to the point, canceling the president's visit can be done cleanly, but at that point in time there wasn't much of a nuclear imperative to mobilize the president immediately. No world leaders were calling. Nothing seriously needing George W. Bush's attention was actually happening.
Other such shit in that film was commentary on the Iraqi war. Seriously? Moore showed the world that the Iraqis were quite happy and carefree under Saddam, and that deposing him destroyed their lives. If you believe that, I've got a brook in bridgeland to sell you....
Moore is a flaming psycho with a warped view of reality and a strong desire to push his views regardless of facts. He doesn't want people to think; he wants people to side with him like sheep. We have enough bullshit artists in the media; we don't need more.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I have a better idea:
Let's bring the soldiers home so they can't accidentally kill children, journalists, or innocents. Or get killed themselves. And I don't mean two years from now ('bama's schedule) but immediately. Tomorrow. The Soviets wisely stopped fighting in Afghanistan when they realized it's hopeless to civilize that mountain country, and we should too. We'd save a LOT of lives.
>>>you didn't know that in war civilian sometimes get killed?
Of course. But that doesn't excuse the Pentagon lying about it and pretending war is as clean as a hospital room ("surgical precision to avoid civilian casualties" they claimed). It's good to have these videos exposed to reveal the lie.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
What the hell is it about Wikileaks that brings out the nutbag libertarians?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Everyone believes they are in the middle.
When he purports to be creating "documentaries," yes, it kind of does.
You see, documentaries are generally held to be factual representations of some aspect of life that the filmmaker wants to... document. Now, if Mr. Moore titled his movies with such names as "The Conspiracy that I, Michael Moore, am sure is behind the 9/11 attacks!" then you could say that they are documentaries: documenting his views and opinions.
But he represents these opinions and views and interpretations as objective, factual depictions of a situation, and they are demonstrably not in many cases. How much trust can you give to the work of a documentary filmmaker who is known to be distorting the truth, or even deliberately lying, in order to bolster his own viewpoint?
Would you trust the Discovery Channel to tell you the truth if they released a documentary purporting to show the reality of how lions and other animals interact in the wild, and that movie turned out to be Disney's The Lion King, complete with musical numbers?
from the outside, we see moore a hero. maybe its possible that the endless propaganda perpetrated by corporate owned mass media have twisted you american people's views about moore
The problem is that most of Moore's "facts" which he presents in his movies turn out to be no more than elaborate fabrications. He routinely takes quotes out of context, overlays a speech over video from another event, re-arranges video and audio, creates set-up interviews where he asks the guy one question and then re-shoots himself asking another question so the answer is presented in the manner which Moore wants, and many more methods of turning real events into fictional ones.
There are plenty of websites out there that take Moore's movies and show, "fact" by "fact", just how badly Moore manipulates reality. Now this doesn't mean that Moore's topics aren't worth investigating, it just means that you can't take anything he says as the truth. Do your own investigation into the truth and you'll be far better off than relying on Moore to do the job for you.
Sapere aude!
Moore is not making documentaries, he's making propaganda/entertainment pieces. His presentation is not factual, it is slanted to tell a story he wants. Now that's fine, nothing at all wrong with that, however if you see him as a hero, well that just says that you aren't well informed on the issues. Not surprising, the world is complex and most people, Americans or otherwise, don't care to spend time to learn about all the shades of gray involved in something but there you go.
If you buy in to his version of the healthcare situation or the Iraq war or any of that all that speaks to is your lack of information on the matter. The reality is far different, far more complex, than the story he wishes to tell.
How does it aid your international relations?...
Fuck you and your country's international relations.
People in a lot of countries are getting a wakeup call on how the US really views them and their elected (or not elected) leaders, and while it has been 'known' by those in the know... Still to have it exposed to the public in such a manner means it's much harder to try hiding it from the people.
Much of it is just embarrassing and not really 'relevant' stuff, true. Yet being a 'crime' is not really the standard by which we should filter them... Cause in that case even talk of acts of torture would be considered not interesting considering what the US has been up to lately.
Remember; these leaks are not primarily for the American people. They are for the rest of the world.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Those that bag Michael Moore and Julian Assange have probably achieved nothing themselves, save lead mundane lives.
I note a post above referred to Mr Moore as a "fat demagogue".
Those that achieve must do something these posters will never do, they must stick their head up and speak their mind. There will always be some ready to scythe down the tall poppy.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Yes, in war civilians get killed. That does not make it OK to lie about how those people died. If it is only a few then the public will probably accept it as acceptable collateral damage. If not, then the public can put pressure on politicians to change how things are progressing. It is a check upon the workings of the government. But, if the government lies about it, then that check is circumvented. If you don't know the truth about what is going on, then how do you judge whether your government is acting in your best interests (as opposed to the best interests of the rich and powerful)?
The greatest purpose that was served was to show you how fragile or even imaginative your freedom of speech really is. There seems to be a national will to get rid of Wikileaks by any means necessary. Nobody gives a shit he is not even US citizen and that even if he was, he broke no law. He is simply a reporter whom everybody is trying to shut down simply because he is embarrasing them. Sure, not all leaks server greater good per se, but you, USA citizens, really should ask yourselves what values you stand for. Cause it does not seem to be based on your constitution, the way your founding fathers planned.
Doesn't matter. They talked. As soon as you say anything to a cop beyond name/rank/serial number and "I want a lawyer", the police will find a charge to hang on you based on what you tell them.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
You know, Michael Moore may resort to half-truths and tugging at the heart strings, but if you have a brain you can see beyond that while still finding a valid message.
If you're an idiot, I'd still rather have you following Michael Moore's rhetoric than Glenn Beck's.
No sig for you!!
I hear this all the time, "He makes some good points but makes them badly." I don't understand this at all. You agree with him, but the way he says things makes you not want to agree? How does that work? What is it about his communication style that makes you want to disagree with things you actually agree with?
Are you sure you agree with what he is saying? Maybe you do agree with him, but you really don't want to agree with him? Maybe you don't want a fat hippie liberal slob to be right, because it sets a bad precedent and then other fat hippie liberal slobs might start speaking up? I don't know, I'm just guessing here. Maybe it is because he is a populist, and you are an elitist, and even when populists are correct, elitists have to put them down, to maintain their elite status? Maybe "He makes some good points but makes them badly." is some sort of code for "I really don't want to agree with him, but I have pretensions of intellectual honesty I am loath to give up, and I have to admit that he is telling the truth even though I don't want to."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Isn't that pretty much the modus operandi of most American "news" sources, not to mention government institutions and politicians ?
What a depressingly stupid machine.
What the hell? I never said the two were equivalent by any means. Your sense of reading comprehension needs work.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
The problem with that is, most cops in the US are corrupt dickheads who will beat you down or arrest you on the "fuck it we'll find something to charge you with later" principle if they don't think you are being properly "respectful" to them.
And yes, this includes telling them "no, I don't consent to any searches." Their actual response isn't "well then I can't search you", it's "well fuck that, I'll beat you up, throw you in my car in cuffs, and while you spend 48 hours in jail we'll break your window and search your car anyways."
Nothing seriously needing George W. Bush's attention was actually happening.
What the fuck? No, seriously, what the fuck?!?! Fucking A, do you really believe this?
9/11 just happened, and it wasn't anything seriously enough happening to require our President's attention?!? God damn man, seriously?!?!?
Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear? Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc? He's not supossed to do any of that? What is this England, and he's royalty, some figurehead?
Seriously, I am just mouth agape at this point. My god.
2. Assange is also one of the douchey-est asswipes I have ever heard of. What he did to those women may not have been rape by any american legal definition of the word, but he is still the kind of loser I would warn my sister and niece away from (of course that doesn't say much about the two loose women that slept with him either.).
3. Moore is also a fairly douchey, even if he often supports moral causes, he tends to do so rather unethically. Moore and Asasange make a good pair and they should help each other out.
4. It releaves me of the nagging thought that I should help out Assange with cash. I mean, he may be a total douchey asswipe, but he shouldn't go to jail. The morons calling him a terrorist need to get a grip. Terrorists KILL people they hate. When all you do is print/publish/write crap about people you hate it is called being the "loyal opposition". If we could get Bin Laden to stop trying to kill us and only publish our nasty secrets, that would be a huge victory.
So I am pretty happy about this situation. One nasty person helping out another nasty person that was falsely accused, so that I don't have to do it myself.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I learned something recently about this. If you don't talk to the police, they will try to coerce you. Remember, they can hold you for 72 hours without filing charges. So, if you don't talk to them, expect to be arrested, booked, spend 12 hours in holding cells, held in jail with convicted criminals until they finally choose not to file charges against and release you. Bail is so high its impossible for non-celebrities to pay. Even bail bonds cost you 10% and that's a fee. I spent 3 days in jail vs paying $5,000 bail bond (on $50k bail). It was an educational experience. I was exercising my civil rights and for that I was treated like an animal. Hand cuffed, strip searched, DNA scanned. Jail is so dehumanizing.
What the fuck? No, seriously, what the fuck?!?! Fucking A, do you really believe this?
Yeah, there wasn't much he could do at the current time. There was no source of attack known and he can't personally gather intelligence on this. Someone will tell his secretary if Russia calls, and the CIA will be informed, and he will get a notification immediately.
Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear?
Already happening, that's what the intelligence community does. If they know it, he'll know it.
Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc?
Well, generally the state of new york and the locality of new york city are going to respond first. Nobody claimed an attack yet, so we're not automatically at war. Plane crashes are considered a "disaster," not an "attack." So the governor of New York State or the mayor of New York City would be calling in the New York National Guard, fire department, etc, and setting disaster areas.
At this point, it's the President's job to either run around going "what what I'm confused did somebody blow shit up what's happening?!" or kick his feet up on his desk smoking a cigar telling "the boys" to keep him informed. There's no cigars allowed in first grade classrooms.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
the man engages in ideological arguments that don't guarantee any financial return. he could take the money he earns and lead a much more lucrative life, not doing things like, for example, springing for assange's bail
look: you don't have to like michael moore, but you have to admit that he is a man of conscience, that what motivates him is belief, not greed. to say that someone like michael moore is really just motivated by money, when he clearly is a shining example of a person motivated by ideology, is just a lame weak ignorant smear on your part
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You know, Michael Moore may resort to half-truths and tugging at the heart strings, but if you have a brain you can see beyond that while still finding a valid message.
The thing is, there IS a valid message, and he doesn't need to resort to half-truths to get that message across. The message should speak for itself. Embellishments and falsehoods are only going to cloud the validity of that message.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
And I think your mother was a llama. What do I base that on? Absolutely nothing, which appears to be the standard of proof you are using.
Moore made his argument. Your rebuttal to his argument is "He lies and uses bad logic." which isn't really any kind of rebuttal or argument at all, it is just an unsupported opinion. Remember, that which can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So, consider yourself and your opinions dismissed until you come back with some evidence.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear? Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc? He's not supossed to do any of that?.
No.... He wasn't really supposed to do any of that. Seriously.
Intelligence activity takes time to come up from analysts through the various levels of filters until it gets to the President. We have entire agencies of analysts whose job it is to figure out what is going on and inform him. At that point him doing his job is saying "keep me informed".
And more importantly, the rest of those responsibilities mostly fall under the State and local government. Specifically the National Guard would have had to have been called up by then Governor Pataki. Local emergency response was handled at the municipal level by Giuliani (quite aggressively I might add, he had to be evacuated from several command posts during the course of the day because buildings were falling down around him).
Unless and until a State Governor officially requests federal assistance, the President literally has no authority to send federal troops or resources. Given the number of times this came up during GWB's Presidency, I am shocked that more people don't understand this.
Uh, wow. Just... wow. You saw this movie? You saw a movie named "Bowling for Columbine," and you watched the whole thing? Really?
I am reminded of a scene in A Fish Called Wanda and a line that goes "The central theme of Buddhism is NOT 'Every man for himself.'" You think the central theme of Bowling for Columbine is gun control?!? Really?!?
I just have to ask, what about the whole last half of the movie? What about Canada? Micheal discovers that gun control isn't the answer, because guns were never the problem in the first place, and he makes that very clear.
So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you right there and ask you to actually watch one of Micheal Moore's films before you critique him.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
-They're moving prisoners out of Guantanamo to foreign prisons.
-Under reporting deaths in Afghanistan. It's not going nearly as well as they've said it has.
-Strong-arm tactics regarding the Copenhagen Accord. Spying, bribing, threats, and cutting off millions of dollars to Ecuador and Bolivia. Politics as usual, sure, but it's still corruption.
-Shoving US-style IP laws down Spain's throat.
-Diplomats know that the Saudi Arabians are the primary donors to Al-Queada. Aren't they an ally? Isn't our "strong military presence" in the area supposed to stop that sort of thing?
-The CIA pressured Spain into dropping investigations into the killing of José Couso, a Spanish journalist, in Iraq by American troops.
That's, you know, our government doing horrible things of various levels. There's a BOATLOAD of details about others doing horrible things. For example:
The Shell Oil Company claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to every movement of politicians. Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.
Bullshit.
They all start out on the lowest rung, making ticket quota. They quickly learn every trick in the book to make it "my word vs yours" - pointing their car's nose wrong-way to block off dashcam, leaning into your car to muffle the audio recording, and so on.
By the time they graduate from traffic ticket quota days, there's no saving them - they're about number of arrests and convictions, not whether they actually did their job right, or followed the law, or got the real culprit. The goal of the police interrogator isn't to find out what you know and determine if your alibi checks out, it's to get you to say something that can be used to incriminate you, and to do so, they will pull any underhanded trick they need - drop a hint in the hallway, sit there "waiting for your lawyer" with the tape off for hours while bugging you about how "all you have to do is talk to us and you can go home", and on and on and on.
I never wanted to admit this growing up, but cops - at least, cops that come up through the corrupt US system - are slime. If not 100% of them, better than 90% of them, easily.
The reason that I want specific examples, rather than a general fucking google search, is that I can rebut specific examples. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with your useless contribution to the discussion. Give me some specific examples of Micheal Moore lying so I can prove he isn't, or shut the hell up.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Analogies are useful illustrating concepts and ideas while not getting hung up on irrelevant details, as you did above.
Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
"The state calls its own violence law, and that of the individual crime."
I write sci-fi for metalheads
And in the US, you pay taxes and are given a court-appointed attorney to represent you if you can't afford to hire one of your own.
Or are you suggesting that in the UK, your taxes get you legal representation from lawyers on par with Alan Dershowitz and William Rehnquist?
I used to think the same thing. A friend of mine was recently arrested in an airport for saying the wrong thing. (It turns out that the officer misheard what he had said but that's another story.) This friend makes $13K a year. He was denied access to a public defender. Apparently, in some jurisdictions the judge gets to decide who can afford a lawyer. The incident happened during a layover on an international flight so the charges were in a city 1000's of miles from my friend's home. He had to pay to fly himself 1/2 way across the country to appear at his court date. Travel costs alone were a huge fraction of his yearly income. Still, they denied him a public defender.
"Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
Really...so a week or so ago when that police officer pulled me over to tell me my lights weren't on, I should have been far more confrontational instead of having that nice chat we had about how beautiful Pigeon Forge, Tennessee is during their Winter Festival.
.. the asshole is usually partially correct, police officers do have something better to do than traffic stops. And if said asshole would follow the speed limit or not run red lights or not do illegal lane changes that endanger other people, then the nice police officer could get right to those more important things.
It's been my experience that most police officers are nice people that have to deal with the occasional asshole who automatically assumes he is being hassled and wrongfully claims he has never done anything wrong in his entire life, or feels that the police officers should have something better to do than to pull them over for going 15 mph over the speed limit since he can drive safely at that speed.
Well
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
I'm a nutbag anarcho-capitalist, and I donate to Wikileaks.
And Ron Paul supports Wikileaks as well. Good old Wikileaks, bringing the nutbag socialists (myself) and nutbag libertarians into agreement. But really, why should government transparency be a right-wing/left-wing issue? The ones who paint it as a liberal/conservative issue are just trying to demonize their opponents. A sad effect of the two-party system in the U.S.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."