"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is back in court today, and has been granted bail by a British judge. He has been in a British prison for a week after being denied bail last week. Assange is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes involving two women in Sweden. It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."
In fairness of trying to keep things even, please note that the population in this country is also vastly larger. As anyone that works in or runs a large business can tell you, simply scaling your strategy up rarely works. You have to change your entire approach after a certain point.
That being said, I pretty much agree with you on the drug war expanding government's power over the people exponentially.
There was an entire documentary about this. I'm at work, so I'm not going to go googling for it, but I believe it was called "If Drugs Were Legal", or something to that effect. It talks about pharmaceutical companies making designer drugs that cause specific effects and side effects, allowing the user to tailor their experience to exactly what they want.
Personally, I'm not so sure I'd be willing to take a recreational drug created by a pharmaceutical company, but the market would undoubtedly be massive.
The only segment of society that benefits from anti-drug laws are the smugglers and dealers, which tell you who's funding the anti-drug lobby.
You forget pharmaceutical companies (hemp and marijuana would have a major impact on their bottom line for a lot of old standbys), so-called "rehab centers", and, let's not forget, our privately-owned prisons.
Let's be specific here. How have I forced my religious view upon you today? Or even during the last week? My moral views? How does my support for a legal status that grants spousal privileges but that isn't called "marriage" force anything upon you? How is demanding that I accept a homosexual "marriage" not forcing a moral viewpoint upon me?
And where did I demand such a thing? I merely presented an opinion, and didn't even present my own. You could assume how I feel about it based on what I said, but you'd be wrong. I support banning legally-binding marriage for ALL people. Marriage is a religious institution, and should remain as such. "Civil unions for everyone" is where I stand.
Do you view the laws against murder as being based in hate? Do you view the laws against theft as hate-originated? Those are embodiments of moral codes.
No, but I do view the comparison of laws concerning two people that love each other to laws against murder or theft to be reprehensible.
I'll further point out the hypocritical nature of your position, in that we are told every time there is an "Islamic fundamentalist terrorist act" that is it wrong to ascribe malice to an entire group over the acts of an individual (or 19 of them), and yet "Christians" are guilty of "hating homosexuals" because a few of them do, or of hate crimes in general based on the Crusades that happened centuries ago.
yeah yeah, I know...I made a broad generalization, and as we all know, broad generalizations are only that: generalizations.
Yes, I know this is not the place for a debate about gay marriage, but let me ask this. If the sacrament of marriage really isn't that special (the response that gays make when faced with the "it's a special thing" argument) then why isn't a civil union that grants the same legal protections and responsibilities sufficient? That is what mystifies me, and I'm sure a lot of others.
Obviously, I can't speak for gay couples that want to get married (I myself am a married heterosexual male), but from what I've seen, it depends on who you ask. it mostly boils down to the perceived inequality that comes with not being granted the same word, even if the legal rights are all the same.
It's the difference between introducing someone as your significant other or as your wife/husband; even if there are no legal differences, there are societal differences.
Bunch of idiots. If you believe this is a valuable thing that WikiLeaks has done (and I don't), then they've done a better job at destroying the public acceptance of any legitimate leaks than any official US retribution.
Wait...so you're saying releasing cables showing that diplmats are talking smack about countries they're negotiating with, that military contracters are hiring child prostitutes, or proving that certain countries are working with others to help them obtain nuclear materials doesn't count as a "vaulable thing"?
Christ, what DO you consider valuable? Let me guess...keeping corruption buried from the public?
What's not to get? Amazon and Paypal have access to dozens of ways of communicating a message, in some cases (depending on where you are located), they have ways of communicating messages FASTER than putting them on their front page.
I still fail to see how temporarily disrupting one of dozens of ways for a corporation to communicate with the public can be construed as "disrupting free speech." That sounds like the kind of thing you'd hear on Hannity or Olbermann...as in, complete bull.
How is it silly? Amazon, Paypal, and the like are large enough to have access to every communication tool ever developed by the human race. I don't think slowing down or taking down their website for a couple of hours is going to prevent them from expressing themselves.
Think about this: when one of those companies has important information to tell people, where does it appear first: in the news, or on their homepage? Neither. The answer is both.
As far as Paypal and Mastercard go, who knows what's happened there. Again, ignoring the government aspect of things, it's been reported (and not disputed) that Julian opened a bank account using fictitious information and he also provided a false address to the British courts, what do you think the odds are that he provided correct information to Paypal and Mastercard? Both of them are companies that are trying to do business and they have to operate within the various regulatory environments they are subject to. Allowing people to use false information on the accounts is a violation of those rules. If Julian and Wikileaks feel that there has been some malfeasance they have legitimate means of recourse.
I would like to point out that all of those accounts had been open for months, if not years, prior to the cables even being announced, much less released. You don't find it the least bit odd that those companies just happened to investigate this after the most powerful governments in the world had their dirty laundry put out for all to see?
Yeah. Like they could totally go into the closet and whisper their opinions to the cockroaches. No need to be able to talk to the people who want to listen to them.
So they don't have Twitter accounts? Facebook accounts? Or, you know...access to the fucking media?
Slashdot Mirror
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.
um...
"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is back in court today, and has been granted bail by a British judge. He has been in a British prison for a week after being denied bail last week. Assange is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes involving two women in Sweden. It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."
In fairness of trying to keep things even, please note that the population in this country is also vastly larger. As anyone that works in or runs a large business can tell you, simply scaling your strategy up rarely works. You have to change your entire approach after a certain point.
That being said, I pretty much agree with you on the drug war expanding government's power over the people exponentially.
There was an entire documentary about this. I'm at work, so I'm not going to go googling for it, but I believe it was called "If Drugs Were Legal", or something to that effect. It talks about pharmaceutical companies making designer drugs that cause specific effects and side effects, allowing the user to tailor their experience to exactly what they want.
Personally, I'm not so sure I'd be willing to take a recreational drug created by a pharmaceutical company, but the market would undoubtedly be massive.
The only segment of society that benefits from anti-drug laws are the smugglers and dealers, which tell you who's funding the anti-drug lobby.
You forget pharmaceutical companies (hemp and marijuana would have a major impact on their bottom line for a lot of old standbys), so-called "rehab centers", and, let's not forget, our privately-owned prisons.
Still..."take out a contract"? What is this, the freakin' Sopranos? The guy was one step removed from offering Assange a pair of concrete shoes...
From another post I responded to in this same thread:
yeah yeah, I know...I made a broad generalization, and as we all know, broad generalizations are only that: generalizations.
Let's be specific here. How have I forced my religious view upon you today? Or even during the last week? My moral views? How does my support for a legal status that grants spousal privileges but that isn't called "marriage" force anything upon you? How is demanding that I accept a homosexual "marriage" not forcing a moral viewpoint upon me?
And where did I demand such a thing? I merely presented an opinion, and didn't even present my own. You could assume how I feel about it based on what I said, but you'd be wrong. I support banning legally-binding marriage for ALL people. Marriage is a religious institution, and should remain as such. "Civil unions for everyone" is where I stand.
Do you view the laws against murder as being based in hate? Do you view the laws against theft as hate-originated? Those are embodiments of moral codes.
No, but I do view the comparison of laws concerning two people that love each other to laws against murder or theft to be reprehensible.
I'll further point out the hypocritical nature of your position, in that we are told every time there is an "Islamic fundamentalist terrorist act" that is it wrong to ascribe malice to an entire group over the acts of an individual (or 19 of them), and yet "Christians" are guilty of "hating homosexuals" because a few of them do, or of hate crimes in general based on the Crusades that happened centuries ago.
yeah yeah, I know...I made a broad generalization, and as we all know, broad generalizations are only that: generalizations.
Yes, I know this is not the place for a debate about gay marriage, but let me ask this. If the sacrament of marriage really isn't that special (the response that gays make when faced with the "it's a special thing" argument) then why isn't a civil union that grants the same legal protections and responsibilities sufficient? That is what mystifies me, and I'm sure a lot of others.
Obviously, I can't speak for gay couples that want to get married (I myself am a married heterosexual male), but from what I've seen, it depends on who you ask. it mostly boils down to the perceived inequality that comes with not being granted the same word, even if the legal rights are all the same.
It's the difference between introducing someone as your significant other or as your wife/husband; even if there are no legal differences, there are societal differences.
So why are they almost universally opposed to gay mariage? How is forcing your religious or moral views on others NOT the embodiment of hatred?
So why do Christians hate gay people AND abortions?
"Who has less abortions than homosexuals?" -George Carlin
Damn those activist judges!
Definition of activist judge: any judge who makes a decision you disagree with for partisan or moral reasons.
They don't call it "practicing law" for nothing!
Daaaaaaamn.
But come on folks, this is America. If we don't elect crazies who appoint other crazies, it wouldn't be right!
Bunch of idiots. If you believe this is a valuable thing that WikiLeaks has done (and I don't), then they've done a better job at destroying the public acceptance of any legitimate leaks than any official US retribution.
Wait...so you're saying releasing cables showing that diplmats are talking smack about countries they're negotiating with, that military contracters are hiring child prostitutes, or proving that certain countries are working with others to help them obtain nuclear materials doesn't count as a "vaulable thing"?
Christ, what DO you consider valuable? Let me guess...keeping corruption buried from the public?
Pfft, that'd be like a snack food company dropping a professional athlete from their adverts just because the guy was caught with his lips in a bong.
Oh wait...
Once the tech process gets better
Read: home musicians can get better quality sound out of cheaper equipment
we can find more Earthlike planets instead of just these big ones.
Read: music that's closer to actual music, rather than stereotypical "music" (or, in the case of exoplanets, gas giants.)
Still, encouraging
Indeed!
What's not to get? Amazon and Paypal have access to dozens of ways of communicating a message, in some cases (depending on where you are located), they have ways of communicating messages FASTER than putting them on their front page.
I still fail to see how temporarily disrupting one of dozens of ways for a corporation to communicate with the public can be construed as "disrupting free speech." That sounds like the kind of thing you'd hear on Hannity or Olbermann...as in, complete bull.
How is it silly? Amazon, Paypal, and the like are large enough to have access to every communication tool ever developed by the human race. I don't think slowing down or taking down their website for a couple of hours is going to prevent them from expressing themselves.
Think about this: when one of those companies has important information to tell people, where does it appear first: in the news, or on their homepage? Neither. The answer is both.
As far as Paypal and Mastercard go, who knows what's happened there. Again, ignoring the government aspect of things, it's been reported (and not disputed) that Julian opened a bank account using fictitious information and he also provided a false address to the British courts, what do you think the odds are that he provided correct information to Paypal and Mastercard? Both of them are companies that are trying to do business and they have to operate within the various regulatory environments they are subject to. Allowing people to use false information on the accounts is a violation of those rules. If Julian and Wikileaks feel that there has been some malfeasance they have legitimate means of recourse.
I would like to point out that all of those accounts had been open for months, if not years, prior to the cables even being announced, much less released. You don't find it the least bit odd that those companies just happened to investigate this after the most powerful governments in the world had their dirty laundry put out for all to see?
Your post and your sig go well together :)
I don't know about scarier...closer to par for the course, sure, but I don't know about scary.
Man...what does that tell you about our society nowadays? ::shudder::
Yeah. Like they could totally go into the closet and whisper their opinions to the cockroaches. No need to be able to talk to the people who want to listen to them.
So they don't have Twitter accounts? Facebook accounts? Or, you know...access to the fucking media?
puh-puh-puh-puh-puh-puh-POWAH!!!!!!!!!
Psyhic Pizza will also know when to include garlic breadsticks. You know, for those times when you're REALLY high.
"Dude. The garlic is talkin' to me."
"Doesn't it always?"
"I guess you could call it the art of fighting without fighting." -Bruce Lee