US calls Assange 'enemy of state'

Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:40 PM

msongs (30,551 posts)

1. meanwhile killing women and kids in the name of the USA gets a nobel peace prize. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:44 PM

kestrel91316 (45,434 posts)

3. Yes, we are well aware you hate Obama. But you need to put a cork in it until after the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:48 PM

bahrbearian (11,115 posts)

6. Thats right we won't allow truthiness here . Don't forget to alert on me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:48 PM

Fuddnik (4,458 posts)

8. Your opposition to any dissenting viewpoint is censorship

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Fuddnik (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:39 PM

kestrel91316 (45,434 posts)

86. I haven't censored anyone. You don't know the meaning of the word. I've expressed my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:55 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

133. You can't censor anyone. You might get a post hidden on DU but that will not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:52 PM

dipsydoodle (32,696 posts)

12. Well the questions are

Has the US been known to kill women and children and has anyone in the US won the Noble Peace Prize of late .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:55 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

16. Right.....

...put a cork in it until after the election. - Of course you must realize that after the election is when truth will matter even less than it does now...... ''Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'' ~George Orwell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DeSwiss (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:11 PM

robinlynne (15,172 posts)

24. Thank-you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to robinlynne (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:23 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

69. De nada

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DeSwiss (Reply #69)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:25 PM

Xipe Totec (29,827 posts)

126. You are free to criticize Dems at your nearest neighborhood Freeper hive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #126)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:49 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

131. So you think we should be quiet about issues, until the time to talk about issues is past?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #131)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 06:45 PM

Xipe Totec (29,827 posts)

267. My response is to the Voltaire quote in your reply

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #267)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:45 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

271. So I was right. You believe that Corporate Lobbyists should be free to get the

attention of our Elected officials to get their 'issues' heard which they work harder than ever at during election season, while the American people should just shut up and vote without letting those same Elected Officials know what issues they, the People, care about. That leaves the field open to Big Corporations without any challenge. I have noted this 'tactic' now for the past few election cycles, and I have begun to wonder where it is coming from. Who benefits from the silence of the people? Certainly not the people. And since when did it become a problem for any good politician to hear from the people s/he intends to represent? 'The proper venue'. That sounds so Orwellian. 'You may speak, but only in the proper venue'! My Reps never object to hearing from me or my family and friends especially during election season. That is the very best time to get their attention, which is why I find this 'tactic' to be very suspect. Someone doesn't want the people to be heard it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #271)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:55 PM

Xipe Totec (29,827 posts)

273. You must learn to read more carefully

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #273)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:29 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

274. Interesting rant. Did you intend it for someone else btw? Not that I mind, I

enjoy rants no matter how little sense they make. But it really doesn't seem to be addressing anything I said. If you want to lecture DUers, feel free, some people enjoy that role and good for them I suppose if that is their thing. But don't be surprised if people don't pay much attention to your lectures. Eg, and I hate to disappoint people like this, but your lecture here, if it was intended for me, had zero impact, just so you know. To try to correct that and maybe be more successful in the future, my advice is that you try a different, more pleasant attitude if you really want to influence people. Which, and I could be wrong, it appears you do. You catch more flies with honey!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #126)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:23 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

152. I'm not critisizing any Dems. In fact I haven't spoken the name of a single one.

But you are. The pity is that you apparently can't see the contradiction. Nor the distinction. I remember when we here at DU used to strain at the credulity of those ignorant Bush supporters whose only membership requirement for that club was being borne with two blind eyes. Yes, we laughed and laughed at their apparent blindness to reality. Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe you do see it all, and you're anger isn't really directed at me so much as it is your own conscience flaying you for remaining silent on so important an issue when it really matters. If you are in fact upset with yourself for being forced to ignore the contradictions, you would do well to think before you accuse someone of something they haven't done. And if you don't understand what I'm saying, that's fine with me too. Just one more nail in the coffin as far as I can see. - One more nail in someone's coffin.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DeSwiss (Reply #152)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:29 PM

OnyxCollie (6,576 posts)

153. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #126)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:16 PM

robinlynne (15,172 posts)

172. We are all free to criticize Dems wherever we want. That is called democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #126)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:28 AM

fascisthunter (28,608 posts)

279. and that poster is free to say what that poster said here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DeSwiss (Reply #69)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:15 PM

robinlynne (15,172 posts)

171. ooh. your sig gave me the shivers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to robinlynne (Reply #171)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:34 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

184. Thank you.

- On this thread it appears to be particularly relevant. I chose it to serve as a reminder for myself. If others can gain something from it, so much the better......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DeSwiss (Reply #184)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:36 PM

robinlynne (15,172 posts)

185. and this sig is beautiful. especially right after the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DeSwiss (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:42 PM

kestrel91316 (45,434 posts)

91. So, I take it you prefer Rmoney? Because like it or not, that's the choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #91)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:48 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

94. How truly pathetic. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DeSwiss (Reply #94)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:53 PM

Capn Sunshine (14,049 posts)

99. my, that is so elegantly stated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Capn Sunshine (Reply #99)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:37 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

161. Thank you. I thought it best to be direct, succinct.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #91)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:00 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

135. So if you opposed the War in Iraq I take it you loved Saddam Hussein?

I love how now the 'left' has adapted the ridiculous 'logic' of the far right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #135)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:20 PM

OnyxCollie (6,576 posts)

151. It's like debating seven-year olds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #151)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:29 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

155. Thanks for the heads up. ;-) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #151)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:31 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

156. Lol, you're right. Although that is an insult to seven year olds.

I had no idea Ralph caused the BP oil spill. I guess I just wasn't paying attention!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #91)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:48 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

272. So if you opposed the War in Iraq, you Loooooved Saddam Hussein?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:11 PM

OnyxCollie (6,576 posts)

25. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:58 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

55. I just posted the part of the TOS you refer to...........thanks for pointing it out as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:49 PM

rhett o rick (26,781 posts)

97. And after the election will be different? Who do you think you are fooling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:00 PM

leveymg (26,377 posts)

109. No, it's not a violation of TOS. Wanna put that to a test?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:03 PM

pam4water (2,368 posts)

137. "Your blatant opposition to our chosen presidential candidate is a violation of TOS." That sure is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pam4water (Reply #137)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:43 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

164. Once again, reread the TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #164)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:58 PM

rhett o rick (26,781 posts)

233. We know what the TOS says, but we dont agree with your judgement that the post is in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #233)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:26 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

251. YES, I understand that people disagree.....unless of course one "side" criticizes Assange's cult...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #251)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:23 AM

fascisthunter (28,608 posts)

278. get another hobby

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pam4water (Reply #137)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:18 PM

robinlynne (15,172 posts)

175. to Siberia! to to the gulag!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:42 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

163. Don't you realize you can't criticize "Saint" Julien or his supporters without recrimination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:13 AM

Scootaloo (5,893 posts)

201. Actually he makes a fair point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:54 AM

cantbeserious (1,982 posts)

205. Criticizing A Bad Policy Of The US Government And The Inexplicable Nobel Selection Rules

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:15 PM

hughee99 (10,122 posts)

239. Exactly, save it for sometime between May and July of 2013

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:36 PM

bitchkitty (6,812 posts)

254. Are you kidding? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:51 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

9. Exactly.

''We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men (and women).'' ~George Orwell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:55 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

52. Terms of Service:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:34 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

79. So which one of those.....

...is msongs? An extreme-fringe left-winger? A hard-line communist? A kook or crackpot? ♫Or a partridge-in-a-pear-tree!?♫ And when one has been so designated, does one just leave? Self-deport? Turn oneself in and throw oneself onto the mercy of the double-think courts? Or is it more like going into a Room 101 kind of deal? - And finally, does double-think hurt? Or do you just get used to it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DeSwiss (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:11 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

143. You skipped over the FIRST part of my quote of the TOS:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #143)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:29 PM

dflprincess (19,530 posts)

154. We all understand it is important to elect more Democrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dflprincess (Reply #154)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:34 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

159. Then why criticize them during an important election campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #159)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:47 PM

dflprincess (19,530 posts)

166. Because when they're looking for our votes is the only time they may listen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dflprincess (Reply #166)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:14 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

170. So you're not supporting "D"emocratic candidates...as we said, a violation of the TOS around here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #170)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:45 PM

xiamiam (4,438 posts)

187. constitution..first amendment. Every elected official has sworn an oath to uphold it. Citizens are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to xiamiam (Reply #187)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:02 AM

George II (3,021 posts)

218. You can defend "D"s, "R"s, and "I"s if you like, but...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #170)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:59 PM

dflprincess (19,530 posts)

190. I sent money to Bernie Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dflprincess (Reply #190)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:04 AM

George II (3,021 posts)

219. You're completely missing the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #143)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:31 PM

GliderGuider (15,167 posts)

157. I don't see the part about not criticizing leadership or policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to GliderGuider (Reply #157)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:39 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

162. Well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #162)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:45 PM

GliderGuider (15,167 posts)

165. You may not like it, but it's still not a TOS violation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #162)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:43 PM

bitchkitty (6,812 posts)

255. It's not "Saint" anything,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bitchkitty (Reply #255)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:59 AM

George II (3,021 posts)

262. Harping on spelling errors on the internet went out with the Atari computer...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #143)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:23 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

178. I get what the statement says.....

...what I don't have and what you still haven't explained is what that statement has to do with msong's observation? How does stating an obvious fact undermine the above stated objective? Are you saying that ''working within the system'' means remaining silent except when what you say is popular and supportive like air-brushing removes flaws so they can't be seen? Or are you saying that to be a supportive Dem, it requires that one sport two blind eyes so as to more effectively ''work within the system''??? Isn't omission the same thing as lying? And assuming that you have a point (which I know is a grand assumption, but bear with me) you still haven't told me which one of these ''crimes against Dems'' applies to msong. So, if you can't even say which crime has been violated and is applicable, then how can you then say it's a violation of the TOS at all? Eh? I can only conclude in the absence of a charge, that none of this applies to msong and you haven't thought through your statement and just shot your mouth off without thinking. It happens. I've even done it, but it was a long time ago. - However, I also understand your difficulty, given your.... er... condition..... Take care. - It's okay for Lady Justice to be blind, but not us citizens......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DeSwiss (Reply #178)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:30 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

183. Who is "msong"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #183)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:45 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

186. As for who is.....

Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:54 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) ... msongs? it was msongs' comment above: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=246390 and kestrel91316's response to msongs' comment that started this difference of opinion about what is acceptable to say about Dems. Here is your post citing the TOS to kestrel91316, which seemingly supports her idea of embedded censorship here at DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=246541 As for your ''difficulty'' and ''condition,'' there is apparently no conflict which arises in some people who claim to support freedom, liberty and democracy -- while simultaneously trying to squash it in others. Such behavior is called ''doublethink'' -- the holding to two directly contradictory ideas and accepting them both {I provided links so beyond that, I don't know what more I can do}. - In any event, don't sweat it, it's just a ride.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #143)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:03 AM

David__77 (14,121 posts)

192. I always thought the line was advocacy against a Democratic candidate...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to David__77 (Reply #192)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:09 AM

George II (3,021 posts)

195. Neither Lieberman nor Miller ran for office as Democrats after they "crossed over"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #195)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:29 AM

David__77 (14,121 posts)

199. True... there are others though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:36 PM

MotherPetrie (1,883 posts)

83. So where d you fit in if you think President Obama did not and does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #83)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:40 PM

pscot (13,936 posts)

90. Come and sit by me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pscot (Reply #90)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:12 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

146. No thanks...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #146)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:09 AM

pscot (13,936 posts)

194. George the first was often reckoned

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #83)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:11 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

145. See my response to the previous post above - ditto to you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:05 PM

leveymg (26,377 posts)

116. Do I have your permission to start alerting on the Neo-cons prowling around posting war propaganda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to leveymg (Reply #116)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:12 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

147. What does that have to do with my post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #147)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:14 AM

leveymg (26,377 posts)

210. You're the one who posted the TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:04 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

139. And which one of those applies to anyone in this thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #139)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:14 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

148. Why did you skip over the first part of my post and zero in on the last part?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #148)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:39 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

275. Okay, since you haven't pointed any of them out I guess there are none here. So why

did you post that at all then? And you claim I am the one who is paranoid? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #275)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:35 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

277. It's right in front of your eyes, if you choose to ignore it then so be it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:35 PM

MotherPetrie (1,883 posts)

81. No shit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:40 PM

FiveGoodMen (13,242 posts)

2. Hope this ends all the silly posts about how the US doesn't want to get him!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:45 PM

TDale313 (1,317 posts)

4. It should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:46 PM

riderinthestorm (13,178 posts)

5. I wouldn't hold my breath on that. K&R anyway.... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:51 PM

cstanleytech (5,318 posts)

11. Could you highlight the part in the article where it said the US did want him please as I am

just not seeing it, probably because I have only had only 4 hours of sleep in the last 48 hours

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cstanleytech (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:55 PM

FiveGoodMen (13,242 posts)

101. Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #101)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:59 PM

jeff47 (7,464 posts)

108. "Enemy of the State" also isn't supported by the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #108)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:10 AM

FiveGoodMen (13,242 posts)

200. You're right. How did I get that from this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #101)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:01 PM

cstanleytech (5,318 posts)

111. How does that = "they want him arrested and extradited" ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cstanleytech (Reply #111)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:16 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

149. They did not steal anything. They did what news organizations are supposed to do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #149)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:36 PM

cstanleytech (5,318 posts)

160. Reread my post sabrina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cstanleytech (Reply #111)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:21 PM

robinlynne (15,172 posts)

177. you missed the part that classifies wikileaks with al queda. And the part that says that SPEAKING to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to robinlynne (Reply #177)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:48 PM

cstanleytech (5,318 posts)

188. Nope, reread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cstanleytech (Reply #188)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:45 AM

George II (3,021 posts)

229. Yes, (to your respondee), reread AND familiarize yourself with the UCMJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to George II (Reply #229)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:35 PM

cstanleytech (5,318 posts)

242. And like I said reread because I covered it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to robinlynne (Reply #177)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:09 AM

George II (3,021 posts)

221. That was a subjective interpretation of the article, not a statement of fact FROM the article!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:53 PM

greiner3 (3,966 posts)

14. I'm bookmarking for later;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:31 PM

jeff47 (7,464 posts)

74. Hope Assange supporters will start actually reading the articles instead of just the headlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #74)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:56 PM

rhett o rick (26,781 posts)

103. So you dont support Assange but do support WikiLeaks? Strange. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #103)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:15 PM

jeff47 (7,464 posts)

120. Assange's ego is destroying any good WikiLeaks can do. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #120)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:10 PM

rhett o rick (26,781 posts)

142. His "ego"? You are condeming him because of his ego? I hope you arent fooling yourself. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #142)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:31 PM

jeff47 (7,464 posts)

252. I'm condemning him because he's putting himself above his cause. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #252)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:14 AM

rhett o rick (26,781 posts)

257. What are you basing that on? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #120)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:23 AM

leveymg (26,377 posts)

220. "Excessive ego" - Sounds like the sort of denuniation made by Stalinists of the Old Comrades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to leveymg (Reply #220)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:32 PM

jeff47 (7,464 posts)

253. Feel free to describe his attempts to avoid the consequences for rape in any other way. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #253)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:22 AM

leveymg (26,377 posts)

261. It was consensual, so it wasn't rape. Next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to leveymg (Reply #261)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:15 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

264. I guess it was "legitimate rape"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #103)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:21 AM

Bodhi BloodWave (2,058 posts)

215. what exactly is so strange about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #215)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 06:47 PM

George II (3,021 posts)

268. That's the way I feel, too. Unfortunately......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #74)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:54 PM

The Doctor. (17,266 posts)

132. It would behoove his detractors to do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to The Doctor. (Reply #132)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:10 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

141. Well then, I am now an enemy. I follow them on Twitter, I read their blog, I

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #141)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:23 PM

robinlynne (15,172 posts)

179. Sabrina you are rocking tonight!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #141)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:02 AM

xiamiam (4,438 posts)

191. oh sabrina..you mean " i solemnly swear to uphold the constitution" part

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #141)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:19 AM

The Doctor. (17,266 posts)

204. Again, it would behoove you to read and understand the article.

It clearly referred to Wikileaks as 'the enemy', not you, sabrina1. If you can find whether the article suggests that people who follow wikileaks are 'the enemy', then you will have the answer to your question. IOW: try reading the article. Bye now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:01 PM

sabrina 1 (34,120 posts)

136. It won't. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:48 PM

fascisthunter (28,608 posts)

7. lol... well, many who don't know him will believe it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fascisthunter (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:52 PM

AntiFascist (10,799 posts)

13. Am I mistaken, or...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AntiFascist (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:04 PM

dipsydoodle (32,696 posts)

18. Put it this way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:56 PM

OnyxCollie (6,576 posts)

134. I guess anyone who seeded a WikiLeaks bittorrent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AntiFascist (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:13 PM

robinlynne (15,172 posts)

27. yes. beyond any doubt. Anyone who speaks with him can be prosecuted? insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to robinlynne (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:16 PM

malthaussen (2,231 posts)

29. Same concept as excommunication, nyet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to malthaussen (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:18 PM

robinlynne (15,172 posts)

32. If the death sentence is on the table for mlitary personnle speaking with assange, that means Bradle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AntiFascist (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:34 PM

jeff47 (7,464 posts)

77. Yes, you are mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #77)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:40 PM

DeSwiss (17,229 posts)

88. Absolutely.

Reply to this post