*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Corporate America: We're plugging the leaks and burning the bridges, and there's nothing you dirty commie hippies can do about it, so just go home and be happy to exist on our ledgers, where you belong.

TYT isn't asking the right questions.

Why isn't there a financial blockade on New York Times, Guardian, and Der Spiegel?

Who are wikileaks' funders, past and present?

How much does it cost to run a website that stopped accepting submissions years ago, and only hosts text and a few video files that are actually published by surrogates?

Why not use other funding methods? There's plenty of other payment processors and p2p solutions. Funny there's been a financial blockade in the US on online gambling for 5+ years, but you can find a way to send and receive funds if you really want to.

@marbles
For me you miss the point.

On a fundamental level allowing mastercard and visa and paypal to decide which organisations are allowed to exist is so INSANELY DANGEROUS that it makes most of the arguing about the constitution for the last couple of centuries redundant. If this stands, it's all over.

If Lieberman walked into my business and wanted to buy something, I'd tell him that his cash/card cannot be used to make financial transactions at this location. But he is welcome to do business with us, as it is a free country.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

I wish that there were some way to put a check or money-order in some sort of enveloping package and send it to them through some sort of courier service. If only there were a way...

Which is probably why their funding dropped 95% rather than 100%.>> ^rottenseed:

I wish that there were some way to put a check or money-order in some sort of enveloping package and send it to them through some sort of courier service. If only there were a way...

The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant.

Their intentions and assumption of international authority demands urgent criminal prosecution. Or would you rather wait till they start ideological interference with something you do give a shit about?


>> ^rottenseed:
I wish that there were some way to put a check or money-order in some sort of enveloping package and send it to them through some sort of courier service. If only there were a way...

I'm not holding my breath...I don't give a shit about pretty much anything. Unless they tried interfering with not giving a shit...then that means war.>> ^cosmovitelli:

The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant.
Their intentions and assumption of international authority demands urgent criminal prosecution. Or would you rather wait till they start ideological interference with something you do give a shit about?

>> ^rottenseed:
I wish that there were some way to put a check or money-order in some sort of enveloping package and send it to them through some sort of courier service. If only there were a way...

Is it even legal for these companies to capriciously refuse to honor payments for purely political reasons? What if Visa decided to stop people from donating to the Democratic party?

>> ^cosmovitelli:

@marbles
For me you miss the point.
On a fundamental level allowing mastercard and visa and paypal to decide which organisations are allowed to exist is so INSANELY DANGEROUS that it makes most of the arguing about the constitution for the last couple of centuries redundant. If this stands, it's all over.


allowed to exist? *facepalm*

You're missing the point. Assange is a government pied piper.

You even claim now "The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant". Then that means this whole ruse is irrelevant.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^cosmovitelli:
@marbles
For me you miss the point.
On a fundamental level allowing mastercard and visa and paypal to decide which organisations are allowed to exist is so INSANELY DANGEROUS that it makes most of the arguing about the constitution for the last couple of centuries redundant. If this stands, it's all over.

allowed to exist? facepalm
You're missing the point. Assange is a government pied piper.
You even claim now "The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant". Then that means this whole ruse is irrelevant.


The bottom line is rogue elements inside the US Government are commanding private companies to interfere with the expression of constitutionally protected rights in order to destroy an organization that is proving politically awkward for them. What you think of Assange or WL is not the issue: unilateral extrajudicial besieging of lawful political groups is, well, roughly Germany at the start of the 30's.

>> ^cosmovitelli:
The bottom line is rogue elements inside the US Government are commanding private companies to interfere with the expression of constitutionally protected rights in order to destroy an organization that is proving politically awkward for them. What you think of Assange or WL is not the issue: unilateral extrajudicial besieging of lawful political groups is, well, roughly Germany at the start of the 30's.


I completely agree with your assessment here, but the condemning is being directed at VISA,MC,etc and not these neolibs and neocons inside the government. While I no doubt hold VISA,MC,etc in contempt, giving the government a pass is ridiculous.

And if you do your homework, wikileaks and Assange stink of a CIA psyop. Further reason to question the motives of these recent announcements and actions.

Do you ever see something in the news and NOT see a conspiracy? (rhetorical question btw)

>> ^marbles:

>> ^cosmovitelli:
@marbles
For me you miss the point.
On a fundamental level allowing mastercard and visa and paypal to decide which organisations are allowed to exist is so INSANELY DANGEROUS that it makes most of the arguing about the constitution for the last couple of centuries redundant. If this stands, it's all over.

allowed to exist? facepalm
You're missing the point. Assange is a government pied piper.
You even claim now "The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant". Then that means this whole ruse is irrelevant.

>> ^hpqp:

Do you ever see something in the news and NOT see a conspiracy? (rhetorical question btw)
>> ^marbles:
>> ^cosmovitelli:
@marbles
For me you miss the point.
On a fundamental level allowing mastercard and visa and paypal to decide which organisations are allowed to exist is so INSANELY DANGEROUS that it makes most of the arguing about the constitution for the last couple of centuries redundant. If this stands, it's all over.

allowed to exist? facepalm
You're missing the point. Assange is a government pied piper.
You even claim now "The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant". Then that means this whole ruse is irrelevant.



Considering "the news" is a mass propaganda machine, one should be skeptical of anything it says. (concise answer btw)

@marbles

Being skeptical of what one sees/hears/reads is a good thing indeed. There is a difference, however, between critically assessing information with regards to evidence, and trying to fit it into a narrative of paranoid delusion.

It's amusing (in a sad, pathetic kind of way) how conspiracy theorists will berate their opponents for not being skeptical/questioning of media/information, while turning to sources of information TRUTH that cannot hold up against the slightest skeptical inquiry and critical assessment.

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
Being skeptical of what one sees/hears/reads is a good thing indeed. There is a difference, however, between critically assessing information with regards to evidence, and trying to fit it into a narrative of paranoid delusion.
It's amusing (in a sad, pathetic kind of way) how conspiracy theorists will berate their opponents for not being skeptical/questioning of media/information, while turning to sources of information TRUTH that cannot hold up against the slightest skeptical inquiry and critical assessment.


You got it backwards pal. "Conspiracy theorists" are the ones berated for their opinions, and yes it is sad and pathetic.

Aww, you edited out the "Please provide me with an example of what you're talking about." part. You knew I was going to refer you to almost any of your posts, didn't you?

By all means, have your opinions (after all, there are stupider ones even more widely held, e.g. the invisible skydaddy one), just don't try to pretend they come anywhere near the facts of reality.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^hpqp:
@marbles
Being skeptical of what one sees/hears/reads is a good thing indeed. There is a difference, however, between critically assessing information with regards to evidence, and trying to fit it into a narrative of paranoid delusion.
It's amusing (in a sad, pathetic kind of way) how conspiracy theorists will berate their opponents for not being skeptical/questioning of media/information, while turning to sources of information TRUTH that cannot hold up against the slightest skeptical inquiry and critical assessment.

You got it backwards pal. "Conspiracy theorists" are the ones berated for their opinions, and yes it is sad and pathetic.

>> ^hpqp:

Aww, you edited out the "Please provide me with an example of what you're talking about." part. You knew I was going to refer you to almost any of your posts, didn't you?
By all means, have your opinions (after all, there are stupider ones even more widely held, e.g. the invisible skydaddy one), just don't try to pretend they come anywhere near the facts of reality.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
@marbles
Being skeptical of what one sees/hears/reads is a good thing indeed. There is a difference, however, between critically assessing information with regards to evidence, and trying to fit it into a narrative of paranoid delusion.
It's amusing (in a sad, pathetic kind of way) how conspiracy theorists will berate their opponents for not being skeptical/questioning of media/information, while turning to sources of information TRUTH that cannot hold up against the slightest skeptical inquiry and critical assessment.

You got it backwards pal. "Conspiracy theorists" are the ones berated for their opinions, and yes it is sad and pathetic.



No, I edited it out because it's a baseless claim. So refer away. And keep pretending you base your bias against conspiracy theories on anything resembling the "facts of reality".