Found this clip on the fine site, Klein Verzet (The Little Resistance)
"Objects in history may be closer than they appear" – Eeyore for Vlad
"Objects in history may be closer than they appear" – Eeyore for Vlad
Found this clip on the fine site, Klein Verzet (The Little Resistance)
John Bolton is a tool, like every other statist douche, be he Democrator and Republican. If he thinks US law applies to Assange(Though technically he didn’t break any law, as Napolitano explained), shouldn’t the 1st Amendment apply to him as well? Or does only a law which Bolton sees fit should apply?
And BTW, thinking about it, the 1st Amendment would apply just as well to Hitler, as far as Hitler’s freedom of speech per-se is concerned,though that is hardly relevant and is a blatant(And sadly, successful) attempt by? Bolton to dodge the issue.
So it’s not the host Napolitano(Whose siding with Wikileaks is admirable) who is naive here, it’s Bolton who exposed himself once again like the statist douchebag he is. The politicians and their stooges who are now asking for Assange’s head do not care about anyone’s security one bit. To them, “security” and “safety” are nothing more than buzzwords to cover the incompetence and contempt for being scrutinized by the same standards and rules they want applied to everyone but themselves. And since Bolton himself admits that people in government have different rules than people in normal society, that should give them LESS rights than the ordinary individual, NOT more, and as such, should NOT have the right to privacy like? a regular individual. It’s unfortunate that people like Bolton think the opposite. But I find that very revealing. All Assange and other Wikileaks people have done is to open the septic tank where all the shit of politicians floats, and they don’t like it, and that’s all there is to it.
unless he is lying!!!!…..neither of these guys is a statist or naive or stupid, they are both bright and know exactly what they are doing…..we may not know what they are up to, but I have seen both in action for a long time, and have no doubt this was pre-discussed , decided upon what to say and then fed to us…..it is to be remembered that the enemy and all the rest watch this stuff…
“unless he is lying”
Who? Assange? Seems unlikely, in light of all the politicos going apeshit over the dirty laundry of theirs being brought to the light, who are not even trying to deny a thing of what has been revealed, but rather go on a campaign to kill(Possibly even literally) the messenger. But even if he is lying, in what position really are the politicos(Along with their blind, uncritical stooges among the sheeple) who thrive on lies like flies thrive on shit, to criticize him for it?
“Neither of these guys is a statist”, you say? I know Napolitano isn’t(A rare gem in the MSM indeed), but to say that Bolton isn’t a statist is like saying that a prostitute is a virgin. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when hearing people who describe themselves as “conservatives” defending their beloved big-brother-warfare-espionage-police state with the same fervor “liberal” leftists defend their beloved from-cradle-to-the-grave welfare state, and then have the bold face audacity to claim they support “limited government”. To me, it seems like they are just two different denominations of the Cult of the Omnipotent State.
i meant unless bolton is lying….I am not sure what is meant by defending, but what U= i do know is bolton is smart and takes no shit and could be lying through his teeth….who knows….don’t be so literal in your assessment of what you see on tv
The idea that the First Amendment applies to papers that publish classified information came from a Court Decision by a very liberal Supreme Court, there are a lot of very smart lawyers who will argue that it doesn’t and the decision was Judicial Activism. The problem with Judicial Activitism is another court that doesn’t think the same way can remove the Judicial law from the books. The decision (I can’t remember the name) was written to protect the New York Times when it published stolen classified material.
I tend to agree that both of them are up to something but don’t know what, and neither of them is a statist. The Wilileaks scandal is going to damage the US and all other nations, which is probably the goal of Wikileaks since they seem to concentrate on the US. Personally I think Assaunge (sp?) has declared war on the US and the West and is working to bring down all of our governments.
I almost forgot, it is my understanding that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was that not all of the civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution were to apply to non citizens. The idea that they do is another Judicial written section of the Constitution.
Richard,
I am pretty sure establishing a giant warfare-welfare state, which the United States has become progressively over the past 100 years or so, wasn’t part of the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers either. So in light of all that your legalistic sophistry remains pretty much moot here.
Also, Since governments are inherently coercive institutions that will imprison and even kill, if necessary, those who will not play along with them(Even if they don’t require you to participate directly, they will still force you to fund their action by taxation aka extortion), don’t you think expecting us to respect its secrecy is a little bit too much, especially when it thinks it has the right to spy on us with surveillance cameras for the sake of? “our own good”? Wake up, don’t be a tool. Don’t blame Wikileaks for bringing out the dirty laundry of our politicians, blame your governments for creating that dirty laundry in the first place:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM1HlfVF4I4
So in light of all that, I don’t see really what are you so afraid of here. Even if the Wikileaks exposures ends up bringing down any government, Western or otherwise, why would it necessarily be such a horrible thing? Are you afraid of being independent and standing on your own, without having an elite running your life and taking your wealth at the point of a gun? Why do people insist being such sheeple and think that their government is right by virtue of being their government?
To sum it all up with a quote of a Founding Father, which should shed some light on more “original intent”(Which is all but forgotten), “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”.
First there are legal ways to change the government, look at what the TEA party movement is doing, they will change the government and path of the nation without tearing it down. Second do you really hate the US so much that you want to see us destroyed so every little dictator can try and play God over sections of the earth? Third do you really expect any good to come from destroying the US, that won’t give us back our rights, all it will do is let a lot of petty wanna be tyrants loose in North America and there won’t be any kind of law to slow them down.
Yes I know Obama is breaking the law and ignoring the Constitution, and yes I know he will do more damage to us before he is out of office. But I don’t see that allowing a citizen of a foreign nation to destroy us by publishing our secrets is going to do any good.
And if you are a radical libertarian like you post suggests you should understand that the nation you envision will never work, it works against human nature as much as the Socialist utopia does.
And yes I know about Franklin s quote, the liberty he was talking about was the right not to be executed out of hand, not to have your house/home burned out of hand, not to have your stores and other means of making a living confiscated and the right to not have your women raped. You might want to read other writings of the Founding Fathers, including the Alien and Sedition acts that were the law of the land until declared unconstitutional in the early 1900. For most of out history a lot of what now passes as free speech would have gotten you a prison sentence.