Assange/Wikileaks talk about who they admire…wait for it…& the answer is Ron/Rand Paul & Matt Drudge

[kpete]

Assange and Wikileaks talk about who they admire…wait for it…and the answer is Ron/Rand Paul and Matt Drudge.

(ICK)

“The only hope as far as electoral politics… presently, is the libertarian section of the Republican party,” said Assange, in response to a question about the recent swell of college-aged and youth-based support for libertarianism.

“The libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice really in the U.S. Congress,” said Assange. “ am a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues.”
…

“Matt Drudge is a news media innovator… It is as a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform and so of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship,” said Assange.”

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4989

[DonCoquixote]

1. Just because Assange is a political idiot

does not mean he did not do good, however, if he and his fellow libertarians think that government was ecil, they will be surprised when they find all they have done is allow corporations to finally dispense with puppet shows and run things directly; they will then be taken to the glue factory.

[zappaman]

2. no surprise here

[bunnies]

3. Shocking.

[KittyWampus]

4. And let's not forget that Greenwald pushes for Nader's tactic of destroying the Democratic party-

DU'ers cheering these idiot libertarian/anarchists on have no idea how counterproductive they are being.

It's sad.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Yup:

For Greenwald, like for Nader, the evils of liberals loom far larger than the evils of conservatives. The most annoying question in the world is the one posed to them most frequently: Aren’t the Republicans worse? They are loath to give their critics the satisfaction of an affirmative response, which they fear will justify ignoring their urgent denunciations. So much of their intellectual energy is devoted to formulating complex chains of reasoning as to why just the opposite is true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023122231

[Hissyspit]

78. Insulting and attacking everyone

who ever said or did that could remotely be perceived as having a negative impact on Barack Obama whether real or imagined no matter what the facts are is NOT counterproductive? Please...

[RC]

160. And people cheering the 3rd Way and New Democrats have no idea how counterproductive they are being

[PowerToThePeople]

5. This appears to be taken way out of context if you watch the video.

He supports the anti-war stance of Paul.
He supports freedom of speech in regards to Drugde. He never said he approved of Drugde's views.

[Whisp]

14. lots of people have an anti-war stance. I do.

why didn't he credit me and the millions around the world that are anti-war.

Giving Ron Paul any kind of credit for anything makes Assange one dumb fuck.

Honestly, this is gross.

Fuck Ron Paul.

[PowerToThePeople]

17. He was answering the interviewer's leading questions?

He did a very good job of it in my opinion. I did not hear anything in his responses that lead me to think he is right wing and/or libertarian(Paulite) in any sense.

All the bashers/3rd wayers/Pro NSA/DLCers can pile on as much as they want. Keep spewing their BS. They just Look like fools.

[KittyWampus]

19. Except in Assange's own words on multiple occasions. LOL! Your avatar in this context is hilarious.

The Cypherpunk Revolutionary: Julian Assange
Robert Manne
The Monthly | The Monthly Essays | March 2011
http://www.themonthly.com.au/julian-assange-cypherpunk-revolutionary-robert-manne-3081

... I’m not a big fan of regulation ... WikiLeaks means it’s easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this ... A perfect market requires perfect information ... So as far as markets are concerned I’m a libertarian ...

An Interview With WikiLeaks' Julian Assange
Andy Greenberg, Forbes Staff
11/29/2010 @ 5:02PM |911,599 views
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/

... Assange prefers to be called a libertarian ...

Julian Assange gushes to “60 Minutes”
Monday, Jan 31, 2011 06:18 AM EST
By Adam Clark Estes
http://www.salon.com/2011/01/31/assange_60_minutes_video/

... In his first interview since declaring his intention to run for the Senate in the next federal election, Mr Assange said he ''could be described as a libertarian'' ...

[ZombieHorde]

79. There is a big political difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian.

One is socialistic while the other is capitalistic.

[stevenleser]

85. And Assange supports the version associated with Ron/Rand Paul. ie corporate capitalism. nt

[ZombieHorde]

88. He was talking about their anti-war stances. nt

[stevenleser]

98. He's a confirmed liar so you never know what he is talking about or what he means. nt

[ZombieHorde]

139. Perhaps he should run for President then. nt

[stevenleser]

141. I'm sure he wishes he could. Power is his goal, not the truth. nt

[ZombieHorde]

146. Psicop will give you one million dollars if you can prove that you can read minds.

You know you could use the money, so you should go get it. Unless of course you aren't really psychic, and just like to project your own thoughts and your own motivations onto other people.

[stevenleser]

149. That's what deductive reasoning is for. Assange and Greenwald all but ignored Bush and Cheney. Now

they are raising hell now that Obama is in office. AND they are expressing support for Matt Drudge and Ron Paul.

And you think one needs to be psychic to follow that path? Not even close.

[ZombieHorde]

158. Wikileaks has been active since 2001.

Someone posted the interview the Paul stuff came from, and it was about his anti-war stance.

So even if your logic wasn't fallacious, it is still based off a false premise.

Though even if it wasn't, even if he liked them in general, you can't assume motivation based on political affiliation. Well, you can, but doing so is fallacious logic.

[stevenleser]

165. 2006. You understand that makes it worse that they existed during Bush and said nothing about him of

import. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

The articles during BushCo practically wrote themselves there was so much obvious wrongdoing. To have been a supposed whistleblowing site and had no impact and no prominent activity during the Bush administration makes my point completely.

[ZombieHorde]

166. They did talk about Bush, it just wasn't covered nearly as well.

DUers were posting about it.

Thanks for correcting my date. I was living a lie! Again.

[stevenleser]

167. Little to nothing about wrongdoing by BushCo here is the wikipedia description of them 2006-2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2006.E2.80.9308

WikiLeaks posted its first document in December 2006, a decision to assassinate government officials signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys."[25] In August 2007, the UK newspaper The Guardian published a story about corruption by the family of the former Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi based on information provided via WikiLeaks.[116] In November 2007, a March 2003 copy of Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta detailing the protocol of the U.S. Army at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was released.[117] The document revealed that some prisoners were off-limits to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something that the U.S. military had in the past denied repeatedly.[118] In February 2008, WikiLeaks released allegations of illegal activities at the Cayman Islands branch of the Swiss Bank Julius Baer, which resulted in the bank suing WikiLeaks and obtaining an injunction which temporarily suspended the operation of wikileaks.org.[119] The California judge had the service provider of WikiLeaks block the site's domain (wikileaks.org) on 18 February 2008, although the bank only wanted the documents to be removed but WikiLeaks had failed to name a contact. The website was instantly mirrored by supporters, and later that month the judge overturned his previous decision citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.[120][121] In March 2008, WikiLeaks published what they referred to as "the collected secret 'bibles' of Scientology," and three days later received letters threatening to sue them for breach of copyright.[122] In September 2008, during the 2008 United States presidential election campaigns, the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Sarah Palin (the running mate of Republican presidential nominee John McCain) were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked into by members of a group known as Anonymous.[123] In November 2008, the membership list of the rightist British National Party was posted to WikiLeaks, after appearing briefly on a weblog.[124] A year later, on October 2009, another list of BNP members was leaked

Their big report on wrongdoing in the US under Bush/Cheney was "In November 2007, a March 2003 copy of Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta detailing the protocol of the U.S. Army at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was released.[117] The document revealed that some prisoners were off-limits to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something that the U.S. military had in the past denied repeatedly."

That's it.

Then, remarkably, with 2009-2010, you have this laser-like focus on the Obama administration.

Now, mind you, in 2006 and 2007, wikipedia's first years on the internet, there were a ton of articles in the mainstream and non-mainstream media about warrantless wiretapping under Bush. Nothing in wikileaks about that.

[ZombieHorde]

168. Were there many documents leaked to wikileaks during that time? nt

[snooper2]

151. Are you a libertarian?

Would you be ashamed to admit it?

[cali]

44. I can't stand Paul but is Pat Leahy a dumb fuck?

He gives credit to Paul and is in fact coauthoring legislation with Paul to do away with mandatory minimums.

[MjolnirTime]

66. What a weak attempt at defense!

Face it. You were bamboozled by a pack of Libertarians.
And you were so anxious to believe the worst about Obama, that you didn't even question the source or motives.

[Mr Dixon]

184. SMH

Agreed

[struggle4progress]

21. This man is a real wacko: "The only hope as far as electoral politics are concerned

in the United States presently is the libertarian section of the Republican party" -- from the very end of the video, beginning c. 8:00

[PowerToThePeople]

25. That is because Sanders is just one person

Where is the left? Oh, we don't have one. So, his point is that currently the libertarian voice is the only non-establishment voice present in national politics. This is true.

You people are really trying to trash good voices.

[struggle4progress]

65. Considered objectively, on the basis of what would result from their philosophy,

the libertarians do not represent a "non-establishment" voice: they represent a movement that would further consolidate corporate power, by eliminating any remaining regulation, and that would further increase existing power disparities, between those who have money and those who have none, by leaving the so-called "free market" as the major arbiter of struggles -- which is to say, the wealthy would win even more often than they do now

For decades and decades, I've heard right-wing millionaires expound the views we hear from the Paulites. Some of them are, no doubt, very nice people, if you can get to know them. Some of them will like you and sociably enjoy your company right up to the minute they cut your throat. Electing more libertarians will actually move the country to the right

What the libertarians have is a clear and easy-to-understand slogan that addresses every complex problem. This appeals to lazy, low-information voters who want a simply formula for proposing solutions to issues, but don't want to do the hard work necessary to understand issues so one's proposed solutions might actually have a chance of addressing the problems considered

People who want a viable left in the US, with political clout, need to do the hard work of building such a movement, person by person, at the grassroots level and of constructing usable organizational structures enabling the movement to set strategic goals and work towards those goals with flexible tactics. Idolizing rightwingers won't help us with that

[PowerToThePeople]

67. I agree with your statements here. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

28. I wouldn't have been so charitable

but yeah, context matters. The OP's title blows.

[PowerToThePeople]

70. Ya, OP is an outright fabrication to support 3rd-way views. n/t

[ProSense]

37. Ron Paul

"He supports the anti-war stance of Paul. "

...is not "anti-war": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023205539#post6

[MADem]

113. No it doesn't. Can't put lipstick on this pig.

You're seriously trying to claim that he likes these people "just" for their specific views on specific issues, as though they're the ONLY people in the world who hold these opinions?

That's pretty desperate a reach, IMO.

[PowerToThePeople]

114. You must not have listened to the video.

It is pretty clear if you do.

[MADem]

117. Yep, it's pretty clear, all right. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Assange isn't American

therefore his views on what might be the "best hope" in American politics is about as useless as an American's ill-informed and ignorant opinion of Australian politics. To an outside observer, Ron Paul and perhaps Rand Paul may look perfectly reasonable, because they're some of the only people in the US Congress who've actually questioned the foreign policy of the past decade and the wisdom of the USA's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, American support for Israel, torture and extraodinary rendition, and so on. So you know, to Assange, they probably look considerably better than the other American politicians who get reported in the foreign press. Selective perception, and Assange as a non-US citizen would be more concerned with the USA's foreign policy than domestic policy.

[KittyWampus]

7. Snowden is also a Paul fan. The proper context is hackers who are anarchists/libertarians

with an agenda that is not favorable to the Left getting elected in the USA.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. And?

What does Snowden have to do with Assange? Guilt by association? It's Assange's personal views that are discussed in the OP. The proper response is that it's pretty obvious that in terms of foreign policy, there's very little difference between the major parties in the USA. So it's no surprise that Assange would say he's impressed by a minor party with no hope of gaining power that can afford to indulge in idealism rather than realpolitik.

[KittyWampus]

16. Snowden was most likely groomed by Assange's cohorts. And there is a great deal of difference

between the two parties on foreign and domestic policy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Domestic policy is irrelevant (to Assange anyway)

and on foreign policy: Guantanamo is still open, US troops are still in Afghanistan, drone strikes, low-level wars in Pakistan and Yemen and elsewhere, intervention or threat of intervention in Libya and Syria and elsewhere, support for Israel...there is not that much difference in foreign policy that I can actually see. A Republican administration would probably be in a shooting war with Iran at this point, but apart from that? The USA still goes about waving its metaphorical dick around, just because it can, whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House.

[KittyWampus]

24. Except in Assange's own words (reposting from above)

Except in Assange's own words on multiple occasions. LOL! Your avatar in this context is hilarious.

The Cypherpunk Revolutionary: Julian Assange
Robert Manne
The Monthly | The Monthly Essays | March 2011
http://www.themonthly.com.au/julian-assange-cypherpunk-revolutionary-robert-manne-3081

... I’m not a big fan of regulation ... WikiLeaks means it’s easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this ... A perfect market requires perfect information ... So as far as markets are concerned I’m a libertarian ...

An Interview With WikiLeaks' Julian Assange
Andy Greenberg, Forbes Staff
11/29/2010 @ 5:02PM |911,599 views
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/

... Assange prefers to be called a libertarian ...

Julian Assange gushes to “60 Minutes”
Monday, Jan 31, 2011 06:18 AM EST
By Adam Clark Estes
http://www.salon.com/2011/01/31/assange_60_minutes_video/

... In his first interview since declaring his intention to run for the Senate in the next federal election, Mr Assange said he ''could be described as a libertarian''

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. And "libertarian" has a different meaning in the rest of the English-speaking world...

to the one it has in the USA (where it's been co-opted by Ayn Rand worshippers), so that's also pretty irrelevant.

[KittyWampus]

27. except I just provided plenty of evidence in his OWN WORDS what he means & stands for. LOL!

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. Did you?

"So as far as markets are concerned I’m a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly"

that's a direct quote from one of the things you linked to; which doesn't really sound like the sort of thing a Randian would say. So it's pretty meaningless for you to seize on his saying "I could be considered a libertarian" and decide "aha, he means Libertarian as in the US Libertarian Party" when "libertarianism" refers collectively to diverse strains of political thought including the classical liberalism of John Stuart Mill and the anarcho-syndicalism of Proudhon.

I'm not much of an admirer of Assange because I view him as an unpleasant and unprincipled egomaniac; however I can concede that his claim to be "a sort of libertarian" is consistent with his view on information freedom (and not necessarily congruent with the term as used in the narrow context of US politics).

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Clever argument; but, when someone says,

The libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice really in the U.S. Congress,” said Assange. “ am a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues.

They are not referring to:

libertarianism that refers collectively to diverse strains of political thought including the classical liberalism of John Stuart Mill and the anarcho-syndicalism of Proudhon.

But rather, what they are saying what they said ... in the context of American electoral politics.

[Spider Jerusalem]

125. Which from the perspective of an observer outside the USA...

those "principled positions" are more likely to be the anti-war, anti-torture, civil-libertarian views, less so the quixotic nuttery of "we should go back on the gold standard" and "abolish social security".

[Cali_Democrat]

33. Those are his own words

Sorry.

[War Horse]

64. What does Snowden have to do with Assange?

http://wikileaks.spreadshirt.com/edward-snowden-whistleblower-A13166718/customize/color/129

[MADem]

116. Who do you think is providing Snowden with cash and a legal team? The Tooth Fairy?

All of that has been coordinated by ASSANGE.

It's not "guilt by association"--it's "Follow The MONEY."

[stevenleser]

83. The generous perception you attribute to him is completely untrue.

There are a lot of people who have opposed American military interventionism over the past 12 years. For starters:

Bernie Sanders
Dennis Kucinich
John Conyers
Keith Ellison
Raúl Grijalva
Judy Chu
David Cicilline
Michael Honda
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Jan Schakowsky
Barbara Lee
Karen Bass
Xavier Becerra
Earl Blumenauer
Suzanne Bonamici
Corrine Brown
Michael Capuano
Andre Carson
Matt Cartwright
Donna Christensen
Yvette Clarke
Emanuel Cleaver
Steve Cohen
John Conyers
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Peter DeFazio
Rosa DeLauro
Donna Edwards
Sam Farr
Chaka Fattah
Lois Frankel
Marcia Fudge
Alan Grayson
Janice Hahn
Rush Holt
Michael Honda
Steven Horsford
Jared Huffman
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Hakeem Jeffries
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Hank Johnson
Joe Kennedy III
John Lewis
David Loebsack
Alan Lowenthal
Ben Ray Lujan
Carolyn Maloney
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
George Miller
Gwen Moore
Jim Moran
Jerrold Nadler
Rick Nolan
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Frank Pallone
Ed Pastor
Chellie Pingree
Mark Pocan
Jared Polis
Charles Rangel
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Linda Sanchez
Jose Serrano
Louise Slaughter
Mark Takano
Bennie Thompson
John Tierney
Nydia Velazquez
Maxine Waters
Mel Watt
Peter Welch
Frederica Wilson

[Spider Jerusalem]

86. And how many of those people have gotten a lot of coverage in foreign media?

Ron Paul was (quixotically) running for the Republican nomination.

[stevenleser]

90. Kucinich ran for the Democratic nomination several times. BBC has covered Conyers a lot among others

that was my quick search. How much more do you need?

[Rex]

8. Well, nobody said he was smart.

Matt Drudge I can see...but Ron/Rand Paul? BEEEEARRRRFFFF!

[Catherina]

34. See post 5

[Rex]

42. Oh, taken out of context...no more surprising to see that

then the current idiotic meme, "libertarians are extreme liberals'.

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. And not without reason ...

Have you forgotten CodePink’s, “I Stand with Rand” adventure ... so soon?

[Rex]

135. Does CodePink post here?

Just another attempt at marginalizing the left.

[dionysus]

156. code pink is so left they "stand with rand"

[1StrongBlackMan]

169. Their supporters certainly do ...

DU archives is a wonderfully telling thing. I think you even show up in the "stand with rand" threads.

[Rex]

180. I'm sure you do believe that.

It would fit your tiny narrative.

[1StrongBlackMan]

182. It also fits ...

the facts, as even the most brief of archive searches would demonstrate.

[KittyWampus]

53. See my posts… oh, that's right. You plonked me. LOL!

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Remember....Wikileaks recently attacked Obama for using a teleprompter

Matt Drudge and many conservatives have used that bullshit attack against Obama over the years. Remember, it was OK for white presidents to use the teleprompter, but it's not OK for Obama.

Also, Wikileaks loves them some Snowden and Greenwald.

Remember that Snowden is a GOP donor and Greenwald was fully supportive of the Bush administration's war on terror after 9/11.

Wikileaks supportive of Ron/Rand Paul and Matt Drudge? Not surprising in the least.

[Cha]

46. Fucking wikileaks attacked Pres Obama for using

a teleprompter! Fucking goprick morons.

[Cali_Democrat]

48. Indeed they did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023234734

They also threw in an 'authoritarian' jab....which is another attack libertarians love to use against Obama.

[Cha]

63. Yeah, we get a lot of idiotic "authoritarian" moronic digs around here

straight from the horse's mouth.

thanks for the link, Cali! I certainly missed that one.. and, it's one not to be missed.

libertarians/teabaggers/shite

[Whisp]

71. It's Stasi bots now. 'Authoritarian' has too many syllables for the froth hating minds. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. The bus will be along in a moment.

[Whisp]

12. holey shitballs....

Assange is a moron!

Who'd a thought that -- I am absolutely floored because I really thought whatever he was, may be and did, he was an intelligent guy.

*faints.

[ZombieHorde]

80. The quotes are taken out of context in order to create a false narative (lie). nt

[UTUSN]

15. R#2 & K for, well of *course* those are the models. n/t

[randome]

18. Are there any further doubts that Libertarians are the Democratic Party's 'Tea Party'?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[KittyWampus]

22. The people in question are more the Democratic Party's version of Ralph Nader intent on destroying

the Democratic Party to save it.

Greenwald(Assange's useful idiot):

even though I know that by abstaining or supporting a third party, I’m going to be sacrificing some of my short term political interests; I’m going to be causing a few more Republicans to be elected than otherwise might be elected; on balance, I’m willing to sacrifice my short term interests in order to do something to subvert the stranglehold that these two parties have on the political process because electing more Democrats, even though it’s a little less scary, accomplishes nothing good. And everyone’s going to have to decide for themselves when they get to that point, and I think and hope that that point is pretty close. And if Obama does move to the center as the consensus is telling him that he should and starts doing things like cutting Social Security, which they’re revving up to do if they can get consensus on, in a very short period of time, I think you’re gonna see lots and lots of progressives and Democrats – even people who hated the Naderites for abandoning the party, start to entertain those options, and a lot sooner rather than later. And I hope that’s the case.

[Rex]

23. Why do you keep saying that? Libertarians are not part of the Democratic Party.

No matter how hard you want that to be true, especially on DU, it just isn't.

[randome]

32. But Libertarians primarily have Democrats in their crosshairs.

Just like the Tea Party has GOPers in their crosshairs. Their professed alignment doesn't matter.

Both TP and Libertarians say they are indepenent and trying to turn things upside down. But the TP primiarly damages the GOP. And Libertarians primarily damage Democrats.

When they can. At least that's the way I see it. They are both nominally part of the GOP but they have different targets.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

36. Their professed alignment doesn't matter? Wow, what have you been smoking?

So then, libertarians are the de facto 'extreme Left' because they target Democratic policy? Thanks for that unintended insight. I see your logical fallacy even has you confused.

You really need to brush up on your political spectrum, your logical fallacy is simplistic.

[randome]

39. I didn't say the analogy was perfect.

Both Libertarians and the TP come from the GOP. The TP does more damage to Republicans. Libertarians do more damage to Democrats. I don't think it's a planned assault, it's just further evidence of the GOP's disarray.

And Libertarians do manage to attract many Progressives to their various causes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

41. Such as what? Give me an example of a cause the both rally around.

nt.

[randome]

45. The basic contemptuousness of politics. Leaving gay rights and pot use up to the states.

My own daughters were starting to come under Rand Paul's spell until I pointed out his brand of 'freedom' would ensure widespread discrimination.

It's as much a 'style' thing as anything else, as evidenced by my link below.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

54. What spell? What did he promise them that was so alluring

that they would walk away from sanity?

The basic contemptuousness of politics is your own subjective view.

A real quick 101;

liberals believe in socialized medicine. libertarians believe in privatized medicine.

liberals believe in free water. libertarians believe everyone should pay for water and probably air too.

Extreme liberals think everything should be free. Extreme libertarians believe you should pay for everything.

They are like night and day.

[randome]

47. They have strange ideas.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2004/11/what_the_bloody/

"There is nothing particularly innovative about short-sightedness and lack of compassion," MacLachlan wrote. "Nevertheless, the way libertarians combine these elements is innovative."

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

57. 'Progressive libertarian' is an oxymoron.

imo.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

174. All the libertarians I know claim to be solidly on the right, not the left

Indeed, there is one I am thinking of who said that "totalitarian" and "socialist" are synonymous. Of course, that led him to claim that ante-bellum slave owners in the American South were socialists. He also said that the temperature in Minneapolis on one specific February morning being -2°F showed that global warming was a myth. He also said that the problem with the Hubble Telescope was that "NASA forgot to 'parabolize' the mirror." He is, of course, an idiot.

[Rex]

181. Can't argue with that kind of solid logic.

You put it all together so nicely!

[DevonRex]

38. I think he's talking about that rather new

brand, the so-called far left Libertarians, who distinguish themselves from the RW Libertarians. So, just as there's a Libertarian wing of the Republicans, supposedly there is a liberal Libertarian group. Some say they're still in the Democratic Party and some say the Party is too conservative for them.

Personally, I doubt that any Libertarian could be liberal in our sense because we do believe in government and in regulations and laws. But when it comes right down to it they all wind up saying good things about Ron/Rand Paul.

[Rex]

40. What liberal do you know that is all for privatizing the public school system?

I'm sorry, but if a person just really hates liberals - they need to come out and say it! Don't hide behind obvious logical fallacies like, 'libertarians are extreme liberals'...really? Extreme liberals have an ideology directly opposed to libertarians!

Point one of these out to me on DU or better yet show me a dozen of them. Nobody can, because that RWing talking point doesn't fly with logic or facts.

Anyone here that says good things about Ron/Rand Paul is not a liberal and I would like to met that person to set the record straight.

[KittyWampus]

52. I'm a liberal but I'm not a purist, an outrage junkie & I don't want to blow up the Dem party

[Rex]

62. Then saying you are a 'libertarian in sheep's clothing on DU'

would be the height of asinine statements. I just don't see these hidden libertarians trying to foil DU on a daily basis...outrage junkies...yeah I agree see that on a daily basis. Libertarian moles pretending to be extreme Lefties? Why? Their POV is diametrically opposite. I guess it could be possible, just haven't seen any here.

Well, none that last and don't get PPRd. Not really members imo.

[DevonRex]

74. They all end up getting tombstoned when they

just can't hold back anymore.

There are a few who have been really good at it, though. But I would have to do some research to Make sure I'm remembering correctly.

One thing that has always stood out for me is the poster who believes s/he is more liberal than us because s/he would not vote to hide any sexist, racist, homophobic speech because nothing should be censored. For liberals, that plays right into Rand Paul's hands, since we know he's a bigot, right? It has nothing to do with liberalism. It has to do with a really sick excuse to actually be hateful, while twisting our values to do it.

Anyway, that's OT from your examples, yet it is an example of one way the ones who weasel in twist things. But eventually they make a grave mistake. Pardon the pun.

[Rex]

106. Yeah you know it.

The sexist, racist, homophobic language always come out too. One of the recently departed trolls comes to mind. They always screw up.

Ding dong!

[DevonRex]

121. So funny that you knew

she was the one I was referring to. Remember all those meta arguments? That's where it was most apparent.

Speaking of Hannah, I was planning to take pictures at the DMZ just for her when I visit early in 2014. Perhaps I'll do it anyway since she will certainly return. Or he. Some say she's a he but I think she was a them.

[Rex]

136. I think it is a he too and I hope they moved to NK

since it seemed to be their version of paradise. THAT was one of the strangest burnouts I've ever seen!

[bemildred]

29. I think both parties could split.

It would not be the first re-alignment in US history, by any means.

[sufrommich]

30. Libertarians don't identify with the democrats.

That's an absurd observation,both Ron and Rand Paul are libertarian figureheads and neither is even remotely democratic. They also frequent teabagger rallies and no one at those rallies would dare identify as a democrat.

[Rex]

31. It is an agenda by a select few here.

Try and slander the Left by saying Libertarians are the extreme Left and no different from the extreme right...the teabaggers. Of course as you immediately pointed out, it is an absurd observation since the ideologies don't even come close to aligning with each other.

[KittyWampus]

50. it's not to slandering "the Left", it's about being honest about the far left outrage addicts.

[Rex]

60. Even IF they are far left outrage addicts...they are LEFT.

Libertarians are the RIGHT. People need to get the nomenclature right to be taken seriously. AND yes I do know what you are talking about...I've seen far left outrage addicts...that does NOT mean they are libertarians! I guess they could be...but why wouldn't they just be GOP moles or Teabaggers?

Honestly, I think far left outrage addicts are just that...they find something to get outraged about on a daily basis. Not sure it is a hidden agenda as much as a personality disorder.

[cali]

43. Assange clearly knows jackshit about U.S. politics

that's just pathetic. He really is a piece of work

[KittyWampus]

49. No, he does know plenty about US politics. That's the whole point.

[cali]

51. got any evidence for that claim, kitty?

you're stating that and proclaiming that it's the whole point is not evidence. No statement that I've ever seen of his regarding U.S. politics, convinces me that he "does know plenty..."

[KittyWampus]

55. Well, he used Manning and Snowden. He's obviously been involved in what's transpired here AND

I posted his OWN WORDS TWICE IN THIS THREAD.

I'm not reposting those quotes from Assange cause someone will alert it as spam.

At this point you embarrass yourself.

[cali]

77. lol. you should know, kitten. You embarass yourself with virtually every post.

of you can't answer my question, kitten.

You are so motivated by your desperate defense of your political idol that you always embarrass yourself, kitten.

[ZombieHorde]

81. The quotes are taken out of context in order to create a false narative (lie). nt

[Violet_Crumble]

101. He probably knows more than the average American...

One thing that's clear about him is that he's super-duper intelligent. But I do think people who aren't Americans don't view US politics in the same way as many Americans would.

What bothers me about him doing this focus on US politics is that we've got an election here in about two weeks and he's running for the Senate. Instead of talking about US politics, he should be focusing on Australian politics and trying to help the Wikileaks party win at least one seat in the Senate. With the likelihood of a conservative win, we need parties like Wikileaks and the Greens in the Senate to hold the balance of power and try to put the brakes on some of the conservatives draconian legislation that they'll be sure to start sending through...

[MjolnirTime]

56. Their fan club here have been ratfucked by the Pauls

[SleeplessinSoCal]

58. Their form of Libertarianism that functions within Capitalism equates to the Dark Ages

They're Christian Fundamentalist (to the point of misogynist) , Deny science, and abhor the public good.

Assange, Drudge and both Pauls are right up there with the Koch Brothers in terms of doing harm.

[stevenleser]

102. Correct. Feudalism is the model they want to bring back. We would all belong to the corporations

utterly.

[geek tragedy]

59. How dare Assange smear himself as a Ron/Rand Paul fan!!!! nt

[Cali_Democrat]

61. He's engaging in CHARACTER ASSASSINATION....

against himself.

[napoleon_in_rags]

68. That's a really unfortunate statement.

There's a load of people on the left fighting for civil libertarian causes. Look at the Amash amendment votes. This section of the left agrees with generally libertarian sections of the right on civil libertarian causes, but not on governments role in providing social services for elderly or regulating large businesses. By saying "The libertarian aspect of the Republican Party", Assange is saying people fighting for civil liberties, peace, demilitarisation on the left really don't matter, and he's taking a stance on de-regulating big business and cutting social services. Not cool.

[Autumn]

69. I don't give a fuck who they admire or why.

They are against the current issue of spying and I'm willing to appreciate any help by anyone, no matter who they agree or disagree with to shine a light on it and get it stopped.

[VanillaRhapsody]

127. So apparently you support the Pauls too...Good to know!

What are your thoughts on Lyndon LaRouche?

[Autumn]

143. Apparently you read support into anything. If all you have is a nail

everything is a hammer. So bang away. You just have a nice day.

[David Krout]

72. You made up the bit about him admiring Drudge

He didn't say that. He said he should be applauded for one thing.

Please learn to fact-check yourself. We should not attempt to make articles juicier than they are.

[Cha]

73. Matt Drudge is a racist and a liar and Assange is a whiner from his hidey hole

in the Ecuadorian Embassy. And, why exactly is he hiding there and gracing us with the tidbits of those he "admires"?

“Matt Drudge is a news media innovator… It is as a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform and so of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship,” said Assange.”

What gave "racist" matt drudge "a platform" was the assholes in the teabagger and rw party.. and turns out .. the "petty vindictive" asshole libertarians.

Maher was talking about Gwyneth Paltrow’s N-word tweet and said, “I would just like to say the problem with racism is not Gwyneth Paltrow. The problem with racism is Matt Drudge. I picked from Matt Drudge’s website, just over a month, we monitored this. Just as a couple, show some of the pictures that were on Matt. There, Mike Tyson looking like he’s going to eat your head. Oh yes, Louis Farrakhan, because he’s so relevant now. Oh, and Marion Barry, he’s in the news every day also. Oh yes, Reverend Wright, because he matters to your life so much. This is who appears on the Drudge Report. Oh yes, and there’s Al Sharpton telling Eric Holder what he should do. And Michael Jordan angry because that’s how we all remember him.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/06/16/bill-maher-medias-job-calling-wing-racist-propaganda.html

"Matt Drudge Trolls Us Again With ‘N*GGER’ Headline"

snip//

Matt Drudge, founder and editor of The Drudge Report, has a lengthy history with the art of Internet trolling. Like most attention whores tricking for web clicks, Drudge goes above and beyond to provoke for the sake of netting attention to his site. Tact is never a tool for those of his ilk, so it’s not surprising to see him consistently sink to the lowest common denominator possible. Still, even if you recognize that his act is to annoy others to get them talking, it’s hard to completely turn a blind eye.

http://newsone.com/2102559/the-drudge-report-racist-nigger/

[Fire Walk With Me]

75. Once in a rare moment, the Pauls DO have a good position, but it is always based

upon the pure selfishness of attempting to draw supporters to their side, to fulfill their mad drive to rise to power.

At least in (Ayn) Rand's case, he often provides utterly conflicting quotes shortly after making such stands, so all's good. FUCK the Pauls!

[OregonBlue]

76. But...but...but he's a hero. So much for that laughable meme. How many posts

have there been on DU asking why we don't like or trust him. Question asked and answered.

[ljm2002]

82. Oddly enough...

...my support for Assange and Wikileaks has nothing to do with Assange's politics.

He is probably ignorant about the full story w.r.t. US libertarians and their politics, and in particular their racism (thinking here specifically of Ron and Rand Paul). But even if not, it doesn't change the facts of the various cases we discuss here: Assange / Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden.

[stevenleser]

84. No, those cases are fails all on their own, like the helicopter video "Collateral Murder" which

is purported to show a US helicopter firing on unarmed civilians but in fact, two of the eleven folks in the crowd had RPGs (aka Rocket Propelled Grenade Launchers), one of which was loaded and one had an AK-47. It's also true that there was a photographer whose camera was mistaken for a third RPG, but that is besides the point.

Assange lied about this video and presented only an edited version that showed what he wanted it to see. The full version shows something else, as Colbert was able to get out of Assange here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/14/julian-assange/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-tells-colbert-per/

Host Stephen Colbert called the title "emotional manipulation." He noted that while soldiers in the Apache did mistake cameras with long telephoto lenses slung over the shoulders of the two journalists for weapons, there were, in fact, two other men in the group with weapons.

"How can you call it 'Collateral Murder?' " Colbert asked guest Julian Assange of Wikileaks, referring to the controversial and widely-viewed video.

"So it appears there are possibly two men, one carrying an AK-47 and one carrying a rocket-propelled grenade -- although we're not 100 percent sure of that -- in the crowd," Assange answered. "However, the permission to engage was given before the word RPG was ever used and before the Reuters cameraman, Namir Noor-Eldeen, ever pulled up his camera and went around the corner."

Assange is referring to a moment in the video when a Reuters cameraman peers from behind a wall, pointing a long telephoto lens. A soldier on the Apache yells "He's got an RPG!" According to a military investigation several days later, there were U.S. ground troops less than 100 meters away, and "due to the furtive nature of his movements, the cameraman gave every appearance of preparing to fire an RPG on U.S. soldiers."

It's true that that's the first time the word "RPG" is uttered by the Apache crew in the unedited 40-minute version of the video. And it's also true that the permission to engage was given prior to that.

But that doesn't mean the group of men on the street was believed to be unarmed prior to that, or that U.S. troops were given permission to shoot at a group of what they believed to be unarmed men.

[ljm2002]

87. The Collateral Murder video is not the only thing...

...that Wikileaks put out there.

However, on the topic of the video, you say:

It's also true that there was a photographer whose camera was mistaken for a third RPG, but that is besides the point.

Really? It's "besides the point"? Not to me, it isn't. Those shooters were trigger happy IMO. And I blame them less than I blame their superiors BTW. Their superiors set the standard.

Then there is the little matter of the US government classifying that video, and refusing to release it to Reuters when they requested it so they could determine the circumstances under which their reporter was killed.

You can parse this stuff out all you want. Wikileaks and other news organizations published information that was given to them by a leaker, and they were fully within their rights to do so. They have published information that is embarrassing to other governments too. They have been harrassed, their funding illegally blocked by private companies who had no right to do so. Presumably though, all of that is A-Okay with you. Fine, you certainly have a right to your opinion. I continue to support Wikileaks and applaud their innovation in providing a platform for whistle blowers to supply information anonymously.

(on edit: added the word "video" to the post title)

[stevenleser]

89. Yes, it's besides the point because the group had three armed members including people with RPGs.

For the video to show wrongdoing, particularly the kind Wikileaks was alleging, there would have had to be no armed people in that group. In fact, if you ask people who have heard about the video, they will say that the people being shot at were unarmed. That is the impression Wikileaks gave people.

Wikileaks and Assange deliberately misled people with that video. Assange admits it now that there were people in that crowd with RPGs. The area those people were in had seen heavy fighting that day and American troops were a few hundred yards from these folks, again, some of whom had RPGs, which are weapons of the insurgency.

Wikileaks presented this as a video of wrongdoing, of firing on unarmed civilians. That is not what it is.

[Hissyspit]

91. Bullshit.

Really?

The Army LIED about it. And the truth never would have come out.

They did a double tap on the rescuers.

This is what you are reduced to?

Yuck.

Just yuck.

[stevenleser]

93. Bullshit. Assange lied about it and submitted an edited video. That is fact and not in dispute.

Assange has had to go back on what he said. That is also fact and not in dispute. It's on video. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusives---julian-assange-unedited-interview

He finally admitted to Colbert that there were people armed in the group. He lied about that when he provided the video at first. Now he admits there were people armed with RPGs in the group. That puts everything else this guy says in dispute.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/14/julian-assange/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-tells-colbert-per/

Host Stephen Colbert called the title "emotional manipulation." He noted that while soldiers in the Apache did mistake cameras with long telephoto lenses slung over the shoulders of the two journalists for weapons, there were, in fact, two other men in the group with weapons.

"How can you call it 'Collateral Murder?' " Colbert asked guest Julian Assange of Wikileaks, referring to the controversial and widely-viewed video.

"So it appears there are possibly two men, one carrying an AK-47 and one carrying a rocket-propelled grenade -- although we're not 100 percent sure of that -- in the crowd," Assange answered. "However, the permission to engage was given before the word RPG was ever used and before the Reuters cameraman, Namir Noor-Eldeen, ever pulled up his camera and went around the corner."

Assange is referring to a moment in the video when a Reuters cameraman peers from behind a wall, pointing a long telephoto lens. A soldier on the Apache yells "He's got an RPG!" According to a military investigation several days later, there were U.S. ground troops less than 100 meters away, and "due to the furtive nature of his movements, the cameraman gave every appearance of preparing to fire an RPG on U.S. soldiers."

It's true that that's the first time the word "RPG" is uttered by the Apache crew in the unedited 40-minute version of the video. And it's also true that the permission to engage was given prior to that.

But that doesn't mean the group of men on the street was believed to be unarmed prior to that, or that U.S. troops were given permission to shoot at a group of what they believed to be unarmed men.

[Hissyspit]

94. Yuck.

[stevenleser]

96. Thank you for finally admitting that Assanges lies are disgusting. nt

[ljm2002]

92. Thank you for confirming...

...your bias. You did not respond to a single one of the points I made but instead continue to harp on that video as if it's the only thing that Wikileaks ever did or revealed. It is not.

But sure, let's talk about the video. As Daniel Ellsberg pointed out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Reactions_to_the_video_footage

As the killing goes on, you obviously would see the killing of men who are lying on the ground in an operation where ground troops are approaching and perfectly capable of taking those people captive, but meanwhile you’re murdering before the troops arrive. That’s a violation of the laws of war and of course what the mainstream media have omitted from their stories is this context.

Furthermore, Wikileaks released the unedited video at the same time they released the edited one:

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2011/video/opensecrets/?_r=0

On April 5, 2010 WikiLeaks released cockpit video footage from a U.S. helicopter gunship in Baghdad. The footage, which documented the killing of 12 people, was released in two versions: the full, original video and an edited video.

So whatever may have been wrong with their editing, they had the integrity to supply the whole unedited thing anyway, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say for most news outlets.

[stevenleser]

95. Thank you for refusing to address Assanges' confirmed lies about that video.

I can understand why you refuse to do it. Once you acknowledge Assange lied when he presented that video to the world, you realize two things.

1. That Manning had no justification when he did what he did at all.

2. That Assange is no longer someone to be believed and his releases are no longer laudable or an attempt to show truth, they are sensationalized disinformation presented as truth.

It's great that you tried to bring Ellsberg into this, but Ellsberg cannot make Assange's lies into truths. Assange lied when he presented the "Collateral Murder" video as a US Army helicopter firing on unarmed civilians.

[ljm2002]

97. And Assange released the entire unedited video...

...for ANYONE who was interested to look at.

Fail.

[stevenleser]

99. And he ultimately admitted he lied and there were weapons in the group. Yes, he failed epically. nt

[Hissyspit]

104. Wow, there was so much more to it than that.

But that's all you care about.

Wow.

[stevenleser]

108. WTF? He lied about the fundamental premise of his release of that video. There's not more to it.

He said it was a US military helicopter firing at unarmed civilians. It's not that and he had to walk that back. Walking that back, admitting that there were folks with RPG's and AK-47s in that group of 11 people changes the situation entirely from one of wrongdoing to one where there is no crime happening in that situation.

He misled the entire world about what happened there. More to it? WTF?

[ljm2002]

105. Assange released the entire unedited video...

...so no matter what you or anyone else thinks of his editing or his remarks, he allowed people to see the WHOLE TRUTH FOR THEMSELVES. From the day it was released.

Fail.

[stevenleser]

109. AND admitted there were folks with RPGs and AK47s in the group that was fired on. I know you dont

want to talk about that, but that is fact, and it changes the situation completely.

[ljm2002]

110. No one had to take Assange's word for it...

...because he supplied the unedited video.

That fact seems to elude you for some reason.

[stevenleser]

112. No one had to take Assange's word for it? You mean like the majority of folks who will never see the

video and relied on this supposed altruistic person who purports to be looking out for everyone by releasing unadulterated truth?

So the other translation of what you are now saying is, OK, Assange is a liar and misled us all but its the fault of the folks who were misled, they shouldn't have believed Assange.

Is that where you are? Because at that point you are agreeing to all of my contentions.

[ljm2002]

118. I get that you don't like the guy...

...and that you think he lied about what was on the video.

However, given the fact that the entire video was made available from the beginning, any person could have gone and viewed it at any time they chose to do so, without relying on anyone else's interpretation. More importantly, any news organization could do so and then present their own interpretation to the public. Apparently our media failed to make the case.

[stevenleser]

120. I have no idea what he is like personally. I know he lied here about something huge and he misled

hundreds of millions of people.

I've compared him to Bush and Cheney misleading/lying to people that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Some percentage of people will always believe that as a result. Once you say false things to people, it can be hard to correct those false impressions.

Just like Bush/Cheney about Saddam and 9/11, some folks will continue to believe the first thing they heard about this video for a long time and that belief is based on a lie.

That lie by Assange is contemptible.

[VanillaRhapsody]

129. It does explain his admiration for Matt Drudge and his kind of sensationalistic "journalism"

[stevenleser]

133. That statement rounds out the picture. He lied with the helicopter video to hurt Obama

and had to walk that back. Assange's statements admitting there were people armed with RPG's and AK-47s in the crowd the helicopter fired on is on video and not in dispute. Assange and Greenwald had little to nothing to say when Bush was in power. Greenwald gets very defensive when you bring up Greenwald's own written statements saying he trusted Bush with Iraq for a long time.

Assange, who tells everyone who will listen that he is a completely altruistic guy whose goal is to put out the 'unadulterated truth' but he lied about the collateral murder video and says he admires Matt Drudge and Ron and Rand Paul.

What is the commonality here? What do you get when you put these pieces together?

You get Assange and Greenwald and Snowden being Right Wing Libertarians who are willing to do anything to hurt Obama and Democrats and bring Ron and Rand Paul and folks who believe the things they believe to power.

[SidDithers]

100. Well, there's a shocker...nt

Sid

[ucrdem]

103. We tried to tell you but you wouldn't listen.

He hasn't exactly hidden his stripes and he's been a thoroughly amoral money-grasping free marketeer all along. He even endorsed Romney.



p.s. by "you" I don't mean you kpete.

[Dawson Leery]

107. The "libertarian" branch of the GOP opposes women's rights, gay rights,

and wants prayer in in public school.

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. And the LIBERTARIAN BRANCH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

wants full respect for civil rights. Why we call them CIVIL LIBERTARIANS.

There are times that both join hands, like when defending those pesky civil rights. The strange bed fellows are not that strange when you understand that.

[Dawson Leery]

175. I agree that we should work with most anyone to maintain civil rights.

I have many libertarian leaning beliefs. Many of us around here feel the same way, that does not mean we subscribe to hardline/pure libertarianism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. The problem is that like liberalism we really do not know the meaning of the terms

Classic Liberalism is different than modern liberalism, and classic libertarianism, (I am a proud of both), is different than what you think it is. Pure libertarianism in the 19th century meant things like Walden's Pond and civil rights. I am still there.

[backscatter712]

111. I get really sick of this logical fallacy.

I am against unconstitutional surveillance of Americans by the NSA.

Rand Paul made statements against unconstitutional surveillance of Americans by the NSA.

And when I make the first statement, a bunch of people jump out and say "HURR! YOU'RE A PAULTARD!"

Give me a fucking break.

[Zorra]

124. It's the conservative way. When you have nothing, you constantly have to make shit up

to defend your position.

Republicans are the classic example of this phenomenon.

[backscatter712]

126. Them and a bunch of people on this site.

Protest the NSA's illegal surveillance? You're a Paultard.
Think Snowden did a gutsy thing by exposing illegal surveillance by our government? You're a Paultard.
Think Obama should get off his ass and put a stop to it, and dare criticize him for not doing so? You're a Paultard, and a racist!

Don't you love how the authoritarians operate?

[PowerToThePeople]

137. I do not think they are even "left" leaning

Why are they allowed to stay on DU? Just because the party has moved to the right of center, by more than a small margin? I have a hard time staying in GD. Constant in your face yelling at you. Yelling that you hold the exact opposite views than you really hold. Why are they able to get away with this?

[backscatter712]

138. Ask Skinner. I've complained about these disruptors multiple times directly to him.

He thinks everything's hunky-dory.

[Dawson Leery]

115. Drudge called for forced silencing of those who opposed the Iraq war.

[stevenleser]

119. I guess that is the "Free Speech" stuff that Assange admires so much. I think we can see a pattern

here. The Assange and Greenwald agenda is not Free speech, it's not the exposing of the truth, it's the furtherance of Right Wing Libertarian-ism and the defeat of that agenda's primary rivals, President Obama and the rest of the Democratic party.

And they are willing to do anything to make that happen. Assange has already been proven to have lied, there was an article out last week that disputes what Snowden's documents show and we will have to see how this plays out.

My money says that Assange has been proven to have lied, I expect we will see the same happen regarding Greenwald. It will just take more time since there isnt a video involved for us all to analyze.

[Dawson Leery]

128. Where were these "libertarians" during Bush's term?

We do not deny the problems with the scope of the governments spying capabilities. At the same time, there is no denying that these same libertarians who are now outraged, were no where to be found during Bush's tenure. Had Romney won last fall, these libertarians would be silent by choice.

[PowerToThePeople]

131. FAIL

I had a personal website I started 2001/2002 dedicated to the Patriot Act and how it would tear apart the 4th amendment. This was a couple years before I made it to DU.

There are not (Paul) Libertarians on DU. This is what you mean to insinuate with your post. You can just stfu with that meme, every one of you that is using it.

[stevenleser]

132. Agreed. That has clearly come out as the agenda. Their goal is to further Right Wing Libertarianism

They couldn't come out against Bush during Bush's time in office because that would have angered the folks in the Republican Party they hope to convert to their side. The Republican Party and particularly the Tea Party section of it is their natural base.

They will lie and have lied to promote that agenda.

[PowerToThePeople]

134. They will lie and have lied to promote that agenda.

You live by this rule, stevenleser.

[stevenleser]

140. I guess this means you join your heroes in supporting Ron Paul and Matt Drudge

Assange lied. There is indisputable proof of that. Sorry if that upsets you.

[PowerToThePeople]

142. And I guess you can go back worshipping Carl Rove and Dick Cheney while watching FoxNEWS. n/t

[stevenleser]

144. Nope, those guys are in your camp. Assange and Greenwald had very little bad to say about them.

We can prove this right now. Go ahead and compile a list of all the articles that Assange and Greenwald wrote against Bush and Cheney and lets compare them to the number of articles I wrote against Bush and Cheney.

If you have the confidence in your guys that you claim, we can put an end to this easily.

Here is my submission http://www.google.com/search?as_q=leser&as_epq=&as_oq=bush+cheney&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=opednews.com&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

[PowerToThePeople]

145. No thanks

Compile a list yourself.

Greenwald and Assange are not "my guys." Hell I had never even heard of Greenwald before this NSA leak deal. All I care about in this situation is the infringement of our Constitutional rights by an overzealous intelligence agency and the laws that have been made to enhance the "security state."

[stevenleser]

147. That's what I thought. I can prove my opposition to them, while Assange and Greenwald let Bush and

Cheney go about their business with hardly a word.

And you have no answer for why that is.

[PowerToThePeople]

150. You do not get it. I do not care. You would like me to care

You do not get it. I do not care. You would like me to care because that is the argument that is constantly used here whenever anyone questions the surveillance state. But, it is FALSE. I have no reason to answer your question. It is a bullshit question.

here is your whole argument in a nutshell

[stevenleser]

155. I don't care what you think. Mr responses to you are about other people who might read them. Not you

What is before us about Assange, Greenwald and Snowden is clear. Their motive is clear, their silence during Bush/Cheney is clear, their sudden springing to life during Obama's administration is clear, their lies with the helicopter video are proven by video.

I don't care if you choose to ignore all of that. I care about the however many other people who might read the exchange.

[PowerToThePeople]

163. "My responses to you are not about you." WTF?

Then stop responding to me and make your own damn OP. This sounds like admitting trolling and/or baiting to me.

Star Member stevenleser (14,778 posts)
155. I don't care what you think. Mr responses to you are about other people who might read them. Not you

What is before us about Assange, Greenwald and Snowden is clear. Their motive is clear, their silence during Bush/Cheney is clear, their sudden springing to life during Obama's administration is clear, their lies with the helicopter video are proven by video.

I don't care if you choose to ignore all of that. I care about the however many other people who might read the exchange.

[great white snark]

153. That's some righteous bringing on the facts, sir.

Indisputable.

[stevenleser]

164. Thank you!

The facts are pretty clear here.

[Dawson Leery]

177. Correct.

[AZ Progressive]

130. You expect white males to not be either a conservative or a libertarian?

Unless I were in an urban place in a known liberal neighborhood, city, or industry, I would never expect a white male to be liberal. They tend to be more libertarian in cities and more conservative outside of cities.

Having that said, libertarians are more reachable than conservatives in some issues, but libertarians are really just the brothers of conservatives, its the conservative with taking out the "order" and religious conservatism focus. They agree with each other in social inequality / anti-egalitarianism which is sharply against liberals and progressives, plus their focus on freedom is taken to the extreme, with an almost reckless view on freedom. Plus, libertarians often see Democrats and liberals as the enemy.

[Initech]

179. Uh... white male here!

I loathe libertarians and have Fox News blocked from my TV receiver. True Dem all the way!

[Fearless]

148. IT'S NOT ABOUT THEM!

This distraction side show is ridiculous. If Rush Limbaugh came out in favor of marriage equality tomorrow does that mean I have to be against it?

No.

Because that's just plain stupid.

[stevenleser]

152. The dots have now been filled in to the point that there is now a complete path.

Let's list some of the dots;

1. Greenwald and Assange claim they are for unadulterated truth and for opposing wrongdoing by governments.

2. They were nearly completely silent during and about Bush and Cheney's wrongdoing. These aren't young guys who suddenly started writing at age 21-23 in the last few years. Greenwald is 46 and Assange is 42. Where the hell were they during Bush's wrongdoing? I wrote somewhere between 200-400 articles attacking Bush and Cheney. Where were these supposed truthtellers?

3. They all of a sudden sprung to life during Obama's administration.

4. Assange lied about the Collateral murder video to hurt Obama. He claimed the video was about a US military helicopter firing on unarmed civilians. Then over a year later he was forced to admit there was at least one person in the group of 11 with an RPG and another with an AK-47. That changes the premise completely. He deliberately misled people.

5. Assange has now come out in support of Matt Drudge and Ron and Rand Paul.

So yes, now it IS about them. They were virtually silent about Bush and Cheney, they lied about the Helicopter Video to hurt Obama, they are supporting right wing Libertarians. Now it's about them. Their motivations are clear, support right wing libertarians, their credibility is suspect and as a result their assertions need independent and firm verification before they should be believed.

[Fearless]

154. Is government spying right or wrong depending on who is president?

No.

It is always wrong.

These people don't matter. The issue at hand is the fact that it is happening. I don't care if any of them have used it to their own ends. We cannot condone it because we disagree with their reasons when we disagree with the programs' existence.

[stevenleser]

157. Assange and Greenwald are not credible, so it's as if there are no allegations at this point.

Their lying and pro-right wing libertarian bias makes any claim of their's worthless.

[Fearless]

159. That's false logic

Essentially because you no longer trust them because of this they have to be wrong about everything?

Life doesn't work that way, IMHO.

[stevenleser]

161. No it's not. Proven liars are not to be believed, particularly with things like this.

And what we have with Assange and Greenwald is more than that. It's proven liars with an agenda.

[Fearless]

162. Because they are shown espousing certain political beliefs in this thread

Doesn't make them liars. That's a stretch.

[Zorra]

172. Wikileaks was founded in 2006, and did not publish their first document until Dec. 2006.

Julian was not even a public figure until 2007.

2006–08

WikiLeaks posted its first document in December 2006...In November 2007, a March 2003 copy of Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta detailing the protocol of the U.S. Army at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was released.[117] The document revealed that some prisoners were off-limits to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something that the U.S. military had in the past denied repeatedly....In September 2008, during the 2008 United States presidential election campaigns, the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Sarah Palin (the running mate of Republican presidential nominee John McCain) were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked into by members of a group known as Anonymous.[123]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2006.E2.80.9308

The Iraq War documents leak is the WikiLeaks disclosure of a collection of 391,832 United States Army field reports, also called the Iraq War Logs, of the Iraq War from 2004 to 2009 to several international media organizations and published on the Internet by WikiLeaks on 22 October 2010.[1][2][3] The files record 66,081 civilian deaths out of 109,000 recorded deaths.[2][3][4][5][6] The leak resulted in the Iraq Body Count project adding 15,000 civilian deaths to their count, bringing their total to over 150,000, with roughly 80% of those civilians.[7] It is the biggest leak in the military history of the United States,[1][8] surpassing the Afghan War documents leak of 25 July 2010.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

Edited to add this: It was GREENWALD who called out Bush and Cheney on ILLEGAL N.S.A. Spying back in 2007!

[stevenleser]

173. Tons of people wrote about Bush's illegal NSA spying in 2007, including me. Some wrote earlier.

My article in 2007 http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_071028_republicans_turning_.htm

Leslie Cauley wrote in 2006 about the NSA database of Meta data http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm a year before Greenwald ever started talking about any kind of NSA surveillance and 7 years before Greenwald decided to write about the same issue.

Greenwald's article in 2007 had zero effect. He was one of hundreds perhaps thousands of other people.

Here is an article from 2005 about NSA spying that beat Greenwald by almost two years

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/23/AR2005122302050.html

Power Play
By Suzanne E. Spaulding
Sunday, December 25, 2005

At his news conference last week, President Bush objected when a reporter characterized his use of executive power to eavesdrop on Americans without any court order as "unchecked." The president's sensitivity is understandable. As he went on to explain, the charge of unchecked power implies that he is asserting a kind of dictatorial authority -- precisely what Americans fought, and continue to fight, against in Iraq. But what are the sources of checks and balances of a president's authority? They are the Congress, the courts and, ultimately, the American people. Based on the facts as reported so far, none of these appear to have operated as an effective check on this extraordinary exercise of presidential power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Greenwald spent most of the Bush administration trusting Bush and Cheney on the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and everything else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

170. What phase of the propaganda campaign is this?

Once again, slowly... it is not about the people, but the NSA spying on you and me. Thanks for the attempted distraction.

[Initech]

178. Gross!!!!

Matt Drudge didn't invent shit, other than he figured out to write polarizing hit piece articles, and Rand Paul is so fucking stupid that it's hard to take him seriously.

[Mr Dixon]

183. IMO

Can you say "Jump the shark" Boys and girls