Your video, TYT - Julian Assange is Now 'Enemy Of State', has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You joke, but I fear him plenty, just somewhat less than Romney. http://videosift.com/video/TYT-Julian-Assange-is-Now-Enemy-Of-State is rising much faster than this video, and it's Obama who declared Assange "the enemy". Obama is not a good person who does good things. I think it's less in his nature to do bad things, but he still does the bidding of his masters. That much is indisputable fact.>> ^PostalBlowfish:

Man, you people reacting favorably to the nice guy must be on some drugs or something.
You should fear nice people irrationally!

Thanks for the promote.
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote

I appreciate the quality.
In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
*Quality

The media would play it up, all right, but from the wrong side. The CBC and BBC, the two most strongly independent outlets of mainstream media have both already done clear hit pieces on Assange, wildly out of character. Strong Independent media like TYT and HuffPost would get dragged through the mud. If you think Tea Party v. OWS was a nation divided, that was nothing.

And the issue is too complex for the average Joe Lunchpail to understand, so it's going to be won, as usual, by bluster. And all the mainstream media together can produce more bluster than all the independent media, and there's not a hope in hell that any but a small portion of independent media outlets will withstand the pressure and put any effort into taking up Assange's case.

Like @Hybrid said, dead man walking.>> ^L0cky:

I'd love to tell Assange to just do it, hand himself over, get extradited, and trigger a huge campaign to have him released; thus bettering society in the long run; etc.
However, I have a funny feeling not enough people would turn out, and the media wouldn't play it up enough; and eventually he'd be left to rot in a cell, all but forgotten; and we'd just be worse off.

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

>> ^gwiz665:

Well, he should be properly questioned for whatever he did/did not do. I don't think there's any doubt there. I get the heebeejeebees when they refuse to question him in the Equadorian embassy, and insist he must be extradited. That's sorta where it starts to smell fishy. If they question him and he is found guilty in the end, THEN they should totally extradite him.
His works with wikileaks doesn't absolve him of crimes.
He should, however, in now way be extradited to the US for instance, where he would likely receive a Bradley Manning and be detained until he breaks from it.


If I was Manning I'd be inclined to go down the hunger strike route. How else can he protest his incarceration? And I'm not sure I'd want to cope with the treatment he receives each day.

The New York Times stealth-edited their article to remove all of the objectionable content, apparently.

http://observer.com/2012/08/new-york-times-article-on-julian-assange-asylum-scrubs-its-toilet-reference/

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TYT, Julian Assange, journalism' to 'TYT, Julian Assange, journalism, new york times' - edited by xxovercastxx

No, he's been charged with nothing.>> ^dannym3141:

Yes he's been charged with something...

He would probably just disappear.
>> ^Mauru:

Sometimes, I catch myself thinking it would be a good thing if Assange faced a US court. The entire shabam would go up in smoke, a healthy prime-time debate about medial responsibilities, transparency and the judicial process of/with political prisoners in/around the united states would spawn...
...which far outweighs the personal freedom of one person...
-that's ususally the part where I wake up and shake the confetti out of frontal lobe.
BTW: Hey let's go invade an embassy so we can get some dude convicted of not using a condom in another country.

My god, it's as if you can't see the difference between a news article and a commentary. Please don't project your own ignorance on everyone else.

>> ^mikeydamonster:

Find it super funny that ppl are ripping on an article because they saw a five minute video featuring totally biased bullet points of said article. When a journalist (see: Cenk) uses a whining baby voice to describe his subject (NYT), well, I tend to take that shit with a grain of salt. How can people talk about "crap" news when the source their citing is know for constantly berating their opponents and literally can't go one minute without calling someone stupid?
In summation, if you didn't read the article and formulated an opinion on it by this sensationalist clip, you are, by definition, ignorant.
If anyone's interested in the "smear piece": http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/1
7/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html?smid=pl-share

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 30 Badge!

Its not up to me to convince you rape is wrong, its not even part of this discussion.

The only reason Britain is involved is the small point that Assange is here? Im sure there are many people like me who wish he was far far away. As to what he thinks, that's irrelevant. You cant seriously argue that perpetrators of crimes should be able to think their way out of responsibility? Anyway, I have no idea what point you are making, so this is just going round in circles.I cant stand the fucker, you seem to admire him, lets leave it at that.

As to the foreign office cocking things up spectacularly, yes they did. Took all the focus off Ecuadors human rights record and slathered it with neo colonialist bull. Thats what happens when Hague gets left in charge, we can only thank god he never got to be PM.

>> ^dannym3141:

Perhaps if you keep repeating this then it will become true and i will be happy for him to get away with rape. You never know. Keep repeating it and see if it works out for you.
Yes he's been charged with something, but he thinks that the government (or several governments) is (are) conspiring against him. So he applied for asylum to another country who granted it.
Now unless ecuador has an extradition treaty with the US, why are we still discussing this? In fact, even if they do - why are we discussing this? I keep telling you that i want britain to keep out, yet you keep accusing me of being a rape supporter. You haven't read a single post i've written so far. Every reply has been either a lie or about something i didn't say.
You're not convincing anyone that either a) i'm a supporter of rapists, or b) that you're not simply a julian assange hater for whatever reason.
However i do agree with your last post - some fucking idiot tory silver spoon rich boy opened his stupid mouth to flex nuts that no one wanted flexing by saying "Actually, we can take him if we want." I bet the diplomatic guys are furious at the shit-storm that created.
>> ^thumpa28:
And you sound like his mother. You want him to get away with his crimes because what? He happened to run a company that released something someone else stole? That make sexual assault ok in your book?>> ^dannym3141:
If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?

Perhaps if you keep repeating this then it will become true and i will be happy for him to get away with rape. You never know. Keep repeating it and see if it works out for you.

Yes he's been accused of something (not charged), but he thinks that the government (or several governments) is (are) conspiring against him. So he applied for asylum to another country who granted it.

Now unless ecuador has an extradition treaty with the US, why are we still discussing this? In fact, even if they do - why are we discussing this? I keep telling you that i want britain to keep out, yet you keep accusing me of being a rape supporter. You haven't read a single post i've written so far. Every reply has been either a lie or about something i didn't say.

You're not convincing anyone that either a) i'm a supporter of rapists, or b) that you're not simply a julian assange hater for whatever reason.

However i do agree with your last post - some fucking idiot tory silver spoon rich boy opened his stupid mouth to flex nuts that no one wanted flexing by saying "Actually, we can take him if we want." I bet the diplomatic guys are furious at the shit-storm that created.

>> ^thumpa28:

And you sound like his mother. You want him to get away with his crimes because what? He happened to run a company that released something someone else stole? That make sexual assault ok in your book?>> ^dannym3141:

If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?