There are plenty of barbarians on both sides (4:50 onwards in particular).

OMFG... the threads... First Bob calls liberals two faced, but Conservatives were upset at the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against Bush and his wars. Many conservatives demanded the Dixie Chips sponsors drop them and had large CD burning events, all over the fact they spoke their mind and their beliefs. Now these same people are upset at A&E for suspending a guy (a rather worthless suspension since the upcoming season is already filmed and he's already in it, and it is making free publicity for a stupid show about rich people).

This isn't a free speech issue. He isn't in jail for espousing anti-gay and racist remarks. He was suspended for saying something that made his part time employer look bad. Food Network fired Paula Dean. There was a PR lady who was going to Africa on a business trip that got fired after she tweeted she hopes she doesn't get AIDS, but no problem since she's white. You represent your company, officially or not, and make them look bad, your employer can fire you. You can say what you want, but sometimes that speech has consequences. A&E created the Duck Dynasty image, he made their network look bad, they have the right to suspend him... suspend, they didn't even fully fire him. Were they really outraged they would have pulled the show or edited him out of the upcoming season, but they didn't do any of that. They made a publicity grabbing move to suspend him.

This video also highlights the one key point I've been saying the whole time. That Jesus Himself said it is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven, doesn't matter if they want to or do follow Him, they have their reward here, and won't have one in Heaven. So Phil goes off on how gays are "full of murder" and how they won't inherit the Kingdom of God, but ignores that part where Jesus Himself said that people like Phil won't go to Heaven.

Then high, blaming it on some Atheist agenda. The same thing would have happened regardless of what religion or lack there of he had. This has nothing to do with Atheist wanting to make Christians look bad, as there is plenty of outrage over what he said in many Christian circles... you do know most liberals are Christian as well. Yes, most Atheist tend to be liberal, but the largest voting block of Democrats and Greens are Christian. People who take the Bible as the literal word of God, and believe Jesus was serious when He said to help the needy and poor, that the rich won't go to Heaven, that blessed are the peacemaker and not the warmongering Republicans, that when you pray, to pray in secret and not make a show of it the way modern Conservatives do, that know the reason for the destruction of Sodom according to the Bible was that "she was a land of plenty and did nothing to help the needy and poor", basically full of modern Conservatives, that the thing with the Angels happened after the city was condemned to be destroyed and they were there to rescue Lot's family, before Lot pulled the father of the year by offering his young daughters (think Olson Twins) over the angelic warriors of God (think Conan the Barbarian and Rambo) with magical powers, rather than just a simple "no". Anyhow, plenty of Christians are upset at what Phil said, because it makes Christians look bad, he not only bashed gays, but thought blacks were fine under the old Jim Crow era laws, thought Nazis were Jesus free, though Jesus and the Bible was their main defense for all they did... He basically made the Conservative Christians look like they ignore the main teaching of Jesus which was to Love one another. Jesus hung out with the sinners and tax collectors and told them of the love of God, not how God is going to condemn them all to Hell. If Jesus was alive in modern day America, he'd be hanging out in San Francisco talking about the love of God, not fighting to deny them equal rights under the law.

And of course Shiny... The controversy with Chick-fil-a isn't so much what some stupid old rich man says, he also made it clear that was the position of the company as a whole. And that anti-gay money was going to organizations that actively campaign not only to make being gay illegal in the US, in other countries where it is gay and punishable by death, they campaign to keep the death penalty attached to it. That said, at least Siny agrees that A&E had no choice... though, based on past posts, I don't think Shiny sees that the whole modern day Conservative movement is driven by the greed factor, that modern Christian Conservatives are willing to toss out every government program to help the needy and the poor so that they can give tax breaks to the rich...

It's all a free publicity stunt. I'm sure A&E will cave in, or Phil will issue some semi apology, "like I still believe it is a sin, but I'm sorry I likened them to murderers and I'm sorry about offending any blacks, I was just noting my personal observations growing up" type thing and he'll continue to rake in millions, going against the very Jesus he claims to follow... and he'll be right back on.

Anyone else think of Conan the Barbarian?

I know very little about Syria beyond what is part of the major consensus narrative aka "history". But it's an interesting discussion to have, so my vote goes to "horrible idea", and here's why.

It's a civil war between bad guys on one side and bad guys on the other side, with civilians, as always, caught right in the middle of this meatgrinder. Foreign supporters of both sides keep adding fuel in the form of cash, weapons, training and personnel, all for their own geopolitical gains, of course. Nobody truly gives a fuck about the population, never has.

If any action is supposed to to be carried out for the benefit of the local population, the refugees and regional stability, I'd say two basic questions need to be answered first:

1) What's the situation?
2) What actions by exterior forces can improve this situation?

Judging by most articles these days, the modus operandi instead seems to be based on two entirely different questions: what actions would benefit our geopolitical/economical situation and what should this conflict's narrative look like to support our intentions.

If you look at all the major players involved, it seems clear to me to be a "stay-the-fuck-outta-this" situation.

US, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Emirates vs Syria, Russia and Iran. Egypt and Lebanon are "involved" on both sides -- Muslim Brotherhood and Lebanese Sunnis against Assad, General Sisi (neutral?) and Lebanese Shia pro Assad. Not to mention Al Qaeda against Assad and Hezbollah pro Assad.

Anytime the US finds itself on the same team as Al Qaeda, the situation needs to be reevaluated. And don't even get me started on those barbarians that cut off people's heads and eat their hearts in front of cameras.

And what's the primary geopolitical angle here? To cut the connection between Iran and the Lebanese Shia (Hezbollah)? I figure if they get isolated, they might lash out - violently. And those guys are much more capable than the rabble that makes up significant parts of the Syrian insurrection.

Once the Alawites and Shia in Syria get chopped up by those "rebels" after Assad was removed, things will get ugly real fast.

My suggestion: stop treating Iran like a pariah and start talking. Their regime might be a disaster, but the Persian people are well educated and much closer to our Western way of life than anyone else in that region. Get them, the Russians and the Chinese involved.

Then again, that's the White Man trying to solve the Brown Man's problems from the outside -- has that ever worked? Besides, it would reduce the threat of terrorism and war -- that's bad for business.

*quality Just started playing some D&D with friends, never have before. I was a barbarian...I smashed things...notice the past tense...

Wow, that is too sad. I watched the clip before reading the comments or description. I was wondering what might have come of her and her family. Fucking barbarians.

This is a war of ideals. No surprise that they see educated women as a threat then. I think its more than just their medieval religious teachings, I think its about keeping their boots firmly pressed against the necks of population. Heres hoping enough get free to change things in the future.

This guy who? The guy who doesn't understand what "Liberal" means?

Not sure who you're referring to.

The Left in this country doesn't exist at the top level.

That's hard to believe with Obama in the Red House and Congress under taxocrat control since 2006.

Which is why everything that occupy accomplished isn't reported on. And yeah I know you're going to say "They didn't accomplish anything" you believe that because you don't actually know the facts of the situation. You would if their was a Left Wing bias in the media.

Well, here's your chance. List 3 things the occupoopers accomplished. Hope these achievements outweigh the chaos, drug-dealing, rapes and deaths it caused, plus the expense of keeping society safe from these trust fund barbarians and other nogoodniks












>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The liberal bias exists enough for this guy to have noticed it in his 30 years at CBS.
Are we counting NPR and PBS? Moyers and Suzuki selling Left on the taxpayer dime?
Chomsky? No thanks. It's hard to believe a wealth redistribution socialist who protects his own assets with a trust.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX reveals the rest of the media for what they are and have been from the start: propagandists for taxocrats and left-wing dogma. And that's not counting the fools in hollywood.
The whole 'Liberal is to "WHAT bias?" as Fish is to "WHAT water?"' will not be rehashed here.
Koppel and Friends failed the American people before there was even a FOX. They lost the trust (and ratings) through their own betrayal of objective journalism.

Actually it will be rehashed here. The "Liberal Bias" does not exist in any study that has been done about it. What has been found is a bias for the State, and War, and a defense of what America does regardless of consequences.
Pick up some Chomsky QM.


This guy who? The guy who doesn't understand what "Liberal" means? The Left in this country doesn't exist at the top level. Which is why everything that occupy accomplished isn't reported on. And yeah I know you're going to say "They didn't accomplish anything" you believe that because you don't actually know the facts of the situation. You would if their was a Left Wing bias in the media.

@renatojj Apologies for the late reply, have been running for work and it doesnt look like that will stop

True that some countries may have less cooperation, though is that dependent on the economic system used or something else? For instance, East Germany had 100% employment and a very active economy, more so then west Germany in some regards. It was ofc run top down with little choice and politically biased, but I am not sure if that lessons the amount of economic transactions, ie cooperation. I guess it comes down to what you define as cooperation.

BTW "those criticisms of the depletion of finite natural resources consists of the economic Law of Diminishing Returns, opportunity cost, and scarcity in economics" -- I never understood what they mean with that. Even if the resource cost goes up strongly due to scarcity it doesnt mean that that resource can be replaced by something else, or that the higher cost (than the original cost of the scarce resource) of the replacement can be born by its consumers.

Now you say something very interesting: I agree with you that capitalism isnt always about ever-increasing competitiveness, in practice. In cases where you have competition, you get ever-increasing competitiveness. (This is in theory what all capitalism strives for) In cases where you do not have competition you dont. That is exactly what we are talking about. Free market philosophy assumes there is always near perfect competition right? How else would the market balance itself if there is no competition? Would you agree that free markets only work where there is competition?

Lets see when we have competition:

"competition is proportional to the difference between supply and demand" That doesnt sound right. If there is large demand and little supply (the difference is big), there is little competition as all suppliers will overcharge like hell as they will be able to sell anything they can manufacturer anyway. If there is large supply and little demand there can be competition, though usually this results in companies leaving the market until you have: If the supply and demand are about equal, you SOMETIMES have competition that keeps things in balance. Or you can have a monopoly for whatever reason and that market has again little to no competition. In other words, in no single scenario is competition guaranteed. Actually, there is good reason to assume markets move to monopolies naturally in all cases. In a market that is turning from early adopters to mass market, there is always focus on economies of scale. Companies need to get bigger to make sure they have the lowest cost price (best competitive edge) and to keep their shareholders happy as they demand growth to make their investments worth more. Bigger companies means fewer companies on the long run, as the market is always limited. This means companies will take over other companies until only a handful remain. Voila. Actually, if it werent for (anti-free market) anti-monopoly rules lots of markets would only have 1 company left. That company would be so big it would be impossible for a new entry to push them out of the market or even get a foothold unless the market itself crumbles because a newer range of products exist that make the old one obsolete. Again, without rules governing economies, things just go bust.

Which was what happened in the derivatives market. It was a completely deregulated market that was exploding itself as there were no rules governing it. When it did explode (ie when the free market failed) there were 2 options left: Let all banks fail or bail them out. Think of the consequences of following your recommendation: If 1 bank fails, it will pull the others down with it as they are all strongly interconnected. As banks are key in the economical world, the entire system would collapse. The amount of devastation would be huge, would probably kill the entire system. Now, you can argue that would be good for us, as we could build a fully new system. But before we would get there, there would be years if not decades of nightmares.
I agree with you that the fall of the derivatives market should never have happened in the first place which is exactly the reason to not follow free markets.

Above clarifies a bit my way of thinking: for many of these markets (be it banks or utilities or employment) the consequences of letting that market fail are just too big. If you have the guts to follow free markets to the end, it might work (isnt proven though) but you come to a point where you destabilize your country in such a manner that things like revolts and all kind of nastiness are highly possible and even likely. That is not progress, that is barbarianism.

You mention yourself that there are practically no free markets anywhere. You say that is because they havent been tried. I say that they have been tried again and again but never last.

If the US wants him, he won't end up on our soil. If anything it'll be Cuban soil.

>> ^Hybrid:

You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.

I would quote back to you the bit where you mention Rosa Parks, but i sense it would be pointless.

The point is, should someone be allowed to get away with rape because bringing them to justice 'would push them too far'? Should any criminal be forgiven their crime because they threaten others with more crime? That would be a charter for scum like Assange to get away with murder.


>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^thumpa28:
Seriously, I cant believe youre comparing Rosa Parks to a scumbag like Assange. Rosa Parks took a stand at the risk of her liberty and even her life. She represented freedom against tyranny and fought for what she believed in.
Assange believes in nothing else but self promotion and when that landed him in deep water, self preservation at the cost of everyone who sheltered him and even paid for his freedom. Assange has never taken a stand in his life, if he had been on that bus he would not have supported Rosa Parks, he would have fled at the first sign of trouble or got coerced into the lynch mob. How many chinese dissident informants, fighting much the same fight for freedom against overwhelming odds, are now in jail or worse because Assange released the unredacted cables out of nothing but another attempt to keep himself in the limelight?
Assange should face the sexual assault charges, we in the UK have a long and lengthy tradition of separation of the judiciary and the organs of state, which includes our intelligence services. As much as it pains me to say so, Assange would receive a fair extradition hearing (whose decision he fled) and a fair trial in Sweden. Hes done the damage now, whilst I wouldnt complain if he had a sudden CIA inspired cardiac arrest, thats the realm of Bond and Bourne.
Dont confuse Assange with Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started up with a reason in mind, Assange took it over as his one man puppet show.
>> ^dannym3141:
There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.
Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?
I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. 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?>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.





Before i even read your comment, in what dimension did i compare Rosa Parks to julian assange? I read it a few times before posting to make sure i wasn't. Please read it again and adjust your comment accordingly, this must be a misunderstanding?
Furthermore (though this is beside the point), if this were 1955 and i used the same argument to support Rosa Parks, you would probably be outraged that i dare compare a scumbag like Rosa Parks to ....I dunno, the blokes who said "I'm Spartacus"? Choose any you like pre-1955.
Regardless, the two parties are irrelevant. The underlying point is that when people are pushed to what they consider their limits (and our limits are all different) then they are prepared to risk hurting themselves and others in the interests of those who come after us.

>> ^thumpa28:

Seriously, I cant believe youre comparing Rosa Parks to a scumbag like Assange. Rosa Parks took a stand at the risk of her liberty and even her life. She represented freedom against tyranny and fought for what she believed in.
Assange believes in nothing else but self promotion and when that landed him in deep water, self preservation at the cost of everyone who sheltered him and even paid for his freedom. Assange has never taken a stand in his life, if he had been on that bus he would not have supported Rosa Parks, he would have fled at the first sign of trouble or got coerced into the lynch mob. How many chinese dissident informants, fighting much the same fight for freedom against overwhelming odds, are now in jail or worse because Assange released the unredacted cables out of nothing but another attempt to keep himself in the limelight?
Assange should face the sexual assault charges, we in the UK have a long and lengthy tradition of separation of the judiciary and the organs of state, which includes our intelligence services. As much as it pains me to say so, Assange would receive a fair extradition hearing (whose decision he fled) and a fair trial in Sweden. Hes done the damage now, whilst I wouldnt complain if he had a sudden CIA inspired cardiac arrest, thats the realm of Bond and Bourne.
Dont confuse Assange with Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started up with a reason in mind, Assange took it over as his one man puppet show.
>> ^dannym3141:
There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.
Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?
I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. 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?>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.






Before i even read your comment, in what dimension did i compare Rosa Parks to julian assange? I read it a few times before posting to make sure i wasn't. Please read it again and adjust your comment accordingly, this must be a misunderstanding?

Furthermore (though this is beside the point), if this were 1955 and i used the same argument to support Rosa Parks, you would probably be outraged that i dare compare a scumbag like Rosa Parks to ....I dunno, the blokes who said "I'm Spartacus"? Choose any you like pre-1955.

Regardless, the two parties i use as examples are irrelevant. The underlying point is that when people are pushed to what they consider their limits (and our limits are all different) then they are prepared to risk hurting themselves and others in the interests of those who come after us, and the point you missed was that it is impossible to tell whether this is "a valiant stand" or not.

I should mention that i'm also british, and i'd insist that it's a bit naive to think that britain is immune to corruption, especially in the wake of the last few years. Our government is surely at least as corrupt as the US's. As a british man, i'm appalled to think that anyone (not necessarily you) is in favour of disrespecting another nation by marching into their embassy, compounded by the fact that THIS DOESN'T CONCERN US. Hell, if you're that much behind justice, why aren't you arguing in favour of britain granting him asylum and doing everything in our power to make sure he faces correct charges and doesn't disappear off the face of the earth? Are you after justice or baying for blood!?

Whatever. Disagree on what assange is or isn't; it's clear that you have strong feelings about assange and as i said before, this just shows how difficult an impartial trial would be for him. Please don't disagree that britain needs to concentrate on BRITAIN for a while, though.

Seriously, I cant believe youre comparing Rosa Parks to a scumbag like Assange. Rosa Parks took a stand at the risk of her liberty and even her life. She represented freedom against tyranny and fought for what she believed in.

Assange believes in nothing else but self promotion and when that landed him in deep water, self preservation at the cost of everyone who sheltered him and even paid for his freedom. Assange has never taken a stand in his life, if he had been on that bus he would not have supported Rosa Parks, he would have fled at the first sign of trouble or got coerced into the lynch mob. How many chinese dissident informants, fighting much the same fight for freedom against overwhelming odds, are now in jail or worse because Assange released the unredacted cables out of nothing but another attempt to keep himself in the limelight?

Assange should face the sexual assault charges, we in the UK have a long and lengthy tradition of separation of the judiciary and the organs of state, which includes our intelligence services. As much as it pains me to say so, Assange would receive a fair extradition hearing (whose decision he fled) and a fair trial in Sweden. Hes done the damage now, whilst I wouldnt complain if he had a sudden CIA inspired cardiac arrest, thats the realm of Bond and Bourne.

Dont confuse Assange with Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started up with a reason in mind, Assange took it over as his one man puppet show.

>> ^dannym3141:

There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.
Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?
I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. 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?>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.

Yeah, one of our strange quirks causes us to frown on sex offenders and want to see them behind bars. It dates back to the Roman conquests probably, mad I know.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.



You sound like the Putin suporters in moscow who want those 'Pussy Riot Whores' hung for daring to challenge the Man..
In most of the world state power does what it likes; murder, torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial.
England is supposed to be one of the few places that shit don't fly.

>> ^thumpa28:

Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.




You sound like the Putin suporters in moscow who want those 'Pussy Riot Whores' hung for daring to challenge the Man..

In most of the world state power does what it likes; murder, torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial.
England is supposed to be one of the few places that shit don't fly.