The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lucky760.

I admire Rachel. She is often the voice of reason. No exception here, in my opinion.

Sorry, I have to disagree. I'm not a big fan of anyone who thinks what Assange is doing is wrong/criminal. We should not be lied to by our own Government, period. They should not be allowed to continue to do things in our name that make America and the American citizens look bad. Their actions put our lives in danger. And quite frankly, I'm not very happy knowing there's people in the world that want to kill me because of things the American Government has done in my name without my knowledge.

She's proving herself to be just another talking head/shill for the Government agenda. In my eyes, at this point she and MSNBC (I'll also throw CNN in there for good measure.) for the most part are no better than the lying morons at FAUX NEWZ. They just have a different slant on their lies. One network lies in favor of the right, the other for the left. It's really quite disgusting the way these people sell their souls, and sell out the American people to have money, and fame. I really thought she was one of the good ones. Now, I have changed my mind.

Compared to Wikileaks previous leaks the cables are information carpet bomb. Some of it is pretty damning, but most is pretty everyday stuff. Tbh I think Wikileaks/Julian wanted more publicity, and going after the empire with massive quanities of leaked cables is probably the easiest way to get it.

I do think that democracy can't properly function without transparency, and the mainstream media in the US is honestly doing the country a huge disservice. The trouble is I think the leaking of massive quantities of unfiltered information doesn't really educates the public at all. Its too much at once and the media has done more reporting about wikileaks, Julian and the govt reaction to the leaks than the actual content of the leaks themselves. Collateral murder had a narrative, and as such I think it ended up receiving the attention it deserved rather than being sidelined by stories about the quantity of leaked cables and Julians personal life.

I hope wikileaks decide to not just scattergun information in the hope that the media is capable of finding the important truths because clearly they are not capable. I also wish Julian had remained anonymous. He did a good job of publicising wikileaks prior to these cables, but since then he's become a easy target and I think its done them more damage than good.

I'm pretty sure Maddow's hairstylist is a dirty commie!

>> ^bareboards2:

I admire Rachel. She is often the voice of reason. No exception here, in my opinion.


Did you not read all that stuff below the video? This basically exposed Maddow to all those people who thought that a "Free Thinker" got their own show on an American News network. What did you guys think that she was special or something? That the public relations industry wouldn't notice her challenging their power and just let it slide?

She's funded by corporations...she would not be in the position she is unless she knew the rules...she's a vanguard there to stifle debate. It's always going to be just like NPR THIS FAR and no further because you can't say and do certain things...such as challenging power.

Yeah, I read it. Doesn't change my opinion that she has a valid point of view.

I disagree with you. I agree with her. That doesn't make us a scourge of humanity. Nor a shill of corporations.

Just two people who have a different opinion than you.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bareboards2:
I admire Rachel. She is often the voice of reason. No exception here, in my opinion.

Did you not read all that stuff below the video? This basically exposed Maddow to all those people who thought that a "Free Thinker" got their own show on an American News network. What did you guys think that she was special or something? That the public relations industry wouldn't notice her challenging their power and just let it slide?
She's funded by corporations...she would not be in the position she is unless she knew the rules...she's a vanguard there to stifle debate. It's always going to be just like NPR THIS FAR and no further because you can't say and do certain things...such as challenging power.

>> ^bareboards2:

Yeah, I read it. Doesn't change my opinion that she has a valid point of view.
I disagree with you. I agree with her. That doesn't make us a scourge of humanity. Nor a shill of corporations.
Just two people who have a different opinion than you.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bareboards2:
I admire Rachel. She is often the voice of reason. No exception here, in my opinion.

Did you not read all that stuff below the video? This basically exposed Maddow to all those people who thought that a "Free Thinker" got their own show on an American News network. What did you guys think that she was special or something? That the public relations industry wouldn't notice her challenging their power and just let it slide?
She's funded by corporations...she would not be in the position she is unless she knew the rules...she's a vanguard there to stifle debate. It's always going to be just like NPR THIS FAR and no further because you can't say and do certain things...such as challenging power.



Really? You think that playing the "It's just a different opinion card" works in this situation rather than refuting the evidence against your argument that has been presented?

Possibly you have an opinion on any of the bullet points at the top of this page?

>> ^Yogi:

Did you not read all that stuff below the video?

I did, but then I watched the video and it was obvious that a lot of "that stuff" was bullshit that didn't reflect the reality of the interview.

Her first point is that this information was supposedly all leaked by someone of the lowest military rank. That he had access to all of this information says awful things about our security procedures.

She goes on to say she thinks Assange is "something of an information-anarchist", that he believes all information should be free and transparency for its own sake. That means he's an actual anarchist in the same way that a grammar Nazi is an actual Nazi.

Her concern is that we shouldn't need Julian Assange. The government ought to be more transparent on its own and they shouldn't be saying/doing these things that they're attempting to cover up. Personally, I wish the government didn't need this pressure, either, but I don't believe government can ever be that good without having its collective feet held to the fire.

I think the video description is far more of a mischaracterization of her than her statements are a mischaracterization of Assange.