So what i gather is Daves old contract stipulated that his new contract would pay him 50% of what he had made Viacom. They then said it was to much money and that in itself invalidated the promise/clause made in the old contract. They then offered him 50 million for the new contract instead of the 250 he was promised from the old one. After he turned down their money they started a character assassination of him in the media for fear he was going public with how they were screwing him. Also i assume they were pissed he wasn't going to be making them a shit ton more money and they were going to punish him for it.

In one of his new stand up specials on Netflix (The Bird Revelation) he makes a comparison of what happened to him by recounting a story from Iceberg Slim’s book, Pimp: The Story of My Life. http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/dave-chappelle-pimp-story-bird-revelation-close-read.html

All Dr. Greger is essentially saying is eat more vegetables & fruits - he's not selling some weird pill or bogus device.
You don't have to give him a cent, and can watch his videos for free. Yet everyone is acting like he's taking people's money and laughing all the way to the bank.

Funny how as soon as someone says to take responsibility for your own actions - people will do anything it takes to make sure they don't have to.

How come nobody has tried the character assassination technique on Dr. Kim Williams yet? (The top cardiologist in the US, mentioned at the end of the video, who is vegan specifically for health reasons) .

It's much easier to attack the first person the on screen that is telling you to take control of your life, because then you can feel good about not taking any action.

Referencing one opinion blog to accuse someone's lack of scientific evidence.

Oh the irony...

EDIT: BTW the blogger is just some bozo that is trying to justify her reasons not to be fully vegetarian/vegan, by using character assassination.

She's doing whatever it takes to clear herself from any responsibility or guilt.

You're right but the advantage Corbyn has is that we don't have a Trump character. Not only has Farage quit, Boris sunk his own career in a party of backstabbers, but we had our personality politics moment and I think people are past it.

The papers won't tell you that; our 8 billionaires will pull out every stop to convince the great unwashed that he's dangerous. The papers will tell you every day right up until a general election that he will lead Labour into electoral oblivion, even as thousands pack out halls in unprecedented showings of support in northern "racist" (according to MSM) towns. They'll tell you they won't win from UKIP and be out of power for 20 years.

I'm not saying he WILL win a GE because the playing field is not level, the game is not fair. Boundary changes will play right into Tory hands and the character assassinations will only increase, but if ANYONE has a chance of winning for Labour it's Corbyn. Owen Smith hasn't a hope in hell of getting MORE votes than Corbyn would, at an election.

The only way to win is by going with Corbyn but I fear that there are influential ex and current MPs who are sabotaging the campaign because this wave of populism and people power would not be beneficial to their future prosperity.

We are living in a post-truth world right now, with journalistic integrity at an all time low. A window was broken in the stairwell of a building where a Corbyn-Labour rival has an office, and it was splashed all over the news that it was a violent, thuggish Corbyn supporter just like they all are. There was no evidence and they even lied about the facts, which has been reported on twitter and by smaller news sources, but the damage is already done, throw enough shit and some of it will stick.

As Lyndon Johnson says - I know it didn't happen, but let's make the bastard deny it. Oh and apologies for shameless derailment.

On topic:
Is Schieffer making the usual mistake here? "It's not the left she needs to worry about, it's the middle." Taking the left for granted is what happened to Labour in the last 10-15 years and seen their support die pre-Corbyn. Dunno how it is in USA but over here the left have had to hold their noses and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent them at all and they're getting sick of it. So thanks to the internet when they finally see the cracks forming they recoil in horror at how they've been undermined from the inside from day one; why should they ever vote for that again?

Meh, that's debatable.

The women involved in the original scandal didn't claim to feel harassed.

She didn't even see the infamous picture.

In fact, she herself thought it was a obscene prank perpetrated by some conservatives who disapproved of her support for Weiner. (hehe)

Furthermore, the leakers weren't "whistleblowers" doing some ground-breaking investigative reporting on corrupt politicians.

They were right-wing lackeys who monitored Weiners communicates with the specific intent to dig up dirt.

From Wikipedia--

According to the New York Times, evidence later revealed that..


So..

Seems like Breitbart henchmen were hunting for some character-assassination dirt..

And Weiner accidentally handed it to them on a silver platter. (Hah)


There were supposedly 5 other women he sexted, and those scenarios may possibly constitute sexual harassment..

But, as far as the original scandal & dick-pic seen 'round the nation go..

A hilarious mistake lead to shaming and the end of a career.

Which sucks because Anthony Weiner was a fierce politician who was fighting the good fight.


So yeah, bad example for Oliver to pick.

But yeah, this statement is just another example of your EXTREME, at this point willful, Naivety.

Are you sure you read that article?

Because the author reminds us that the only reason those ridiculous false charges were dismissed.. was luck.

New York Housing Authority will generally sit on any evidence for months.
Getting that footage would normally be a batttle in-and-of itself.

In that time, NYPD would engage in character-assassination.
Just like police in Ferguson with Mike Brown. Or Trayvon Martin. Or the man who filmed Eric Garner's death.

So great, a recourse that has an extremely slim chance even go to trial.
Even if it does go to trial, public opinion has already decided..
"Well He deserved it. He was a thug anyway."

And on the even slimmer chance that a cop gets punished for their incompetence.. the damage is already done and the victim/s already dead. i.e. Freddie Gray.

Thanks for the link... seen it before, but good nevertheless.
In the media lock down we have right now it takes someone like R.B. to make the mental leaps and join the dots.
If there is better sociopolitical commentary out there about current events I am all ears (links please).

If Brand was more 'together' he'd be towing the corporate news line and sucking that teat or joining the rest of the celebrity morons in drowning us in bullshit.
btw. this guy was just (days ago) character assassinated on Fox news, so he's making waves and also under fire.
Massive props for what he's doing and for keeping it 'real' ie. fuck bland talking heads and regurgitated government/corporate propaganda.

Well done. Attack the person arguing without actually attempting to counter the argument itself. You definitely won that one (genuine lol at this end)

Your right to say we have nothing more to discuss at this stage though I guess, you have just proven more or less everything I was trying to articulate all along i.e. that you would rather live in a little bubble of ignorance than actually try to learn and grow. Character assassination and evasion basically = not having an argument. You could't engage with what I was actually saying so you just resorted to insults and petty circumstantial details (seriously having better things to do for 2 weeks makes my argument invalid?), TROLOLOLOLOL.

The charge of sexual impropriety reeks of an intelligence attempt at character assassination. I fear and despise the government here but the apathy is what scares me even more....Can;t stand to live around the masses who sould give a fiddler's fuck about anything but their entertainment-minus-information robot-think.

Assange fucked-up because he's fighting a machine whose governor has been removed from the flywheel...that machine embedded in the side of a granite mountain and thought information flowing freely would somehow wake a few peeps up to the gravity of its size, scope, players, etc. He's one dude, man. He should have figured that his life would be a pain in the ass after the first trickle fell from his tap. Now, he will remain most likely, vilified and estranged from participation in the game. Not a smart move...BOLD, but not to wise.

Then there's the matter of leaking information without the need-to-know to any and all-comers: Pretty shitty of you Julian, even though your intentions were seemingly noble. To departmentalize without permission well, back to the not-too-bright scenario....Dude?? Did you think that a bunch of "Talking loud and saying nothingers" having your back in internet forums could defeat or sway the masses who devour scat from the Monster Media?? Poor choice of battle plans mister, read Art o' War n try to get the gyst!!

I agree with you completely, @dag. Whether it's character assassination or he truly is a fame whoring ass, it doesn't matter to me one bit. He's a champion for the truth in my eyes and that is what's important to me.

This is probably in response to Colbert's recent Daily Show visit where he said the following: "Nation, I am calling on the Super PAC not to run vicious character assassination ads that impugn and borderline slander any candidate - if in any way those ads can be traced back to me."

Using a member's name in a character assassination is NOT OK
Using a member's name in connection to personal information is NOT recommended.

Using a member's name in conjunction with an event sounds OK to me.
A user-name is just a user-name, they are publicly used on the site. The users are a huge part of what makes this site what it is. I really don't think it's possible to have a Wiki without usine member names.

I agree with use of a member's user-name as long as it is for historical reasons. The Wiki absolutely should not be a place to air one's dirty laundry or continue into a soap opera. We also don't want people to use the Wiki to gather personal info so profiles don't belong in the Wiki - We have profiles for that already.

-Yes, keep a list of Sift-ups, locations and joining members
-Yes, Let us know who had a hand in the milestones of the site
-Yes, Keep a list of the channels and who manages them

It's almost like they have a sense of humor about themselves.

Heh - no they really don't. The room was literally gasping at what he was saying. Robert Downey Jr. looked like he was swallowing a live hagfish. Some were more OK with it than others of course, but clearly Gearvis was hitting them where it hurt and they didn't like it. The hollywood media is literally on fire right now with commentary about how 'over the top' he was. They are going on and on about how he was mean-spirited, unfair, and below the belt.

Meanwhile papers in UK, France, and Germany are saying he was brilliant. I think this quote sums it up quite nicely...

"By their own standards what Ricky Gervais did was a form of performance art. After all, we are talking about an industry that revels in the idea of pushing the boundaries of good taste and decency, that revels in the art of ridicule, shock and satirical character assassination. Except, obviously, when they find themselves on the wrong end of all that ”edgy” envelope pushing."

@xxovercastxx I think you're failing to understand mine.

I agree with your point about people making sure to stand up for what rights they're supposedly entitled to. Nobody's against that, as near as I can tell.

What I'm saying is that if you define freedom as something nobody can take away from you, then you have to follow that to the logical extension of that, which is that government cannot take it away from you, and furthermore no one in history has ever had their freedom taken away, even slaves.

It's a semantic issue, but I think an important one. The way I see it, you only have freedom when you actually have the ability to exercise it without having to acquire some authority's permission.

"Freedom of speech" is a funny thing. You can still get fired for voicing honest opinions. You can still get arrested for trespassing on someone's property (i.e. assembling in protest where people don't want you protesting). You can have your ideas vilified or ignored by the elites who control the flows of information. You can even be the victim of character assassination so that no one listens to what you have to say.

When people talk about "freedom of speech", they're usually not talking about actual freedom to act without submitting to some outside authority, but instead this very narrow promise from the government that it won't jail you for saying something it disapproves of. It doesn't even really hold true to its own promise all the time.

Do you have freedom of speech, or do you just have some legal right (i.e. something the government promises you can claim when it does arresting you) known as "freedom of speech"?

Liberals look at this as an exercise of making sure the government keeps its promises, and whether it makes sense for government to take action to increase the scope of your actual freedom of speech.

Conservatives often look at this as if the scope of government is the only determinant for freedom. Government "can't" pass laws that limit your freedom of speech (because it promises not to!), but likewise government can't pass laws that force privately owned corporations to respect the freedom of assembly and speech of people who take issue with what they've been doing. To do otherwise is to take away our freedoms!

(But they can't be taken away, so that's silly...)

>> ^entr0py:

Sorry kanzfrafka, I should have known that wasn't where you were going with that. You're right, even if the allegations never lead anywhere, the damage to his reputation is already done. Character assassination is easy to pull off with how scandal crazed the media has become.


Especially since the media jump all over allegations like a pack of pirhanas and then bury retractions on page 20.