Surprise surprise. Ass-ange should still hang for the classified leaks.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Surprise surprise. Ass-ange should still hang for the classified leaks.


First Amendment?

Classified documents = stolen documents. Treason.

@quantumushroom, I'm sure the truth behind the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was classified. So were the Pentagon Papers which exposed the lies of four presidential Administrations. Maybe we should round up 79 year old Daniel Ellsberg and hang him in Time Square for high treason?

It's just too easy for the government to say something is classified in order to hide it from the public. This is supposed to be a "representational" government not a secret one.

Also treason only pertains to citizens of that country. Assange is Australian, right?

Classified is just a word. Transparency is a much prettier word.

I would give my opinion , but it's classified.

It's just too easy for the government to say something is classified in order to hide it from the public. This is supposed to be a "representational" government not a secret one.

And yet common sense informs us that in order to maintain freedom and order, things like military operational readiness, technology and war plans should be classified. I'm sure the Germans wished for American "transparency" about D-Day and the Japanese (Happy December 7th!) about our atom bomb programs.

Also treason only pertains to citizens of that country. Assange is Australian, right?

For damaging American national security, Assange should be treated as a foreign enemy and assassinated, just like a bin laden.

Maybe we should round up 79 year old Daniel Ellsberg and hang him in Time Square for high treason?

Ellsberg was/is a traitor, but at least he was prepared to endure his fate, whatever it may have been.

This is an interesting story for you to embrace. The government pushing for weaker international agreements on climate change, presumably to benefit corporate polluters/campaign benefactors. This would be of big benefit to big business, but not so much to oxygen based life forms.

Also, I thought you didn't believe in climate science. I'm glad to hear that you a) now believe climate change is real, and b) support more stringent measures on dealing with climate change. I couldn't agree more.

"The accord turns the UN's top-down, unanimous approach upside down, with each nation choosing palatable targets for greenhouse gas cuts. It presents a far easier way to bind in China and other rapidly growing countries than the UN process. But the accord cannot guarantee the global greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. Furthermore, it threatens to circumvent the UN's negotiations on extending the Kyoto protocol, in which rich nations have binding obligations. Those objections have led many countries – particularly the poorest and most vulnerable – to vehemently oppose the accord."

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

This is an interesting story for you to embrace. The government pushing for weaker international agreements on climate change, presumably to benefit corporate polluters/campaign benefactors. This would be of big benefit to big business, but not so much to oxygen based life forms.
Also, I thought you didn't believe in climate science. I'm glad to hear that you a) now believe climate change is real, and b) support more stringent measures on dealing with climate change. I couldn't agree more.


And you got all this from "And then there was this..."

You're the king of inference.

..and you are the King of avoiding tough questions that you don't have answers for.

If you want me to expand on some aspect of the point I've made above, I'm happy to do so.

...and you are the king of disingenuousness.

You wrote out a laundry list of questions the other day. I answered ALL of them. Then you wrote a trove more and expected I answer every one of them immediately. But then when the tables are turned, you cop out and claim my questions are grounds we've combed tirelessly many times and therefore not worthy of your rebuttal.

Did you ever check that page out? You dodged (almost)every single question, like you are dodging questions now. As I remember, your answers were basically, this question is irrelevant, that question is biased, that other question has the measles..... Like always, you found excuses to escape my troublesome queries.

What have I failed to answer for you? You name it, and I'll answer it right here and now, on the spot muthafucka!

So now my answers aren't good enough? Or they weren't answers you liked? Whatever, all I did was post a link and wrote "And then there was this..."

How you read into that and were able to infer I was dodging questions is beyond me. Projection.

Most of them are not answers. See for youself:http://videosift.com/video/Senator-Jim-Demint-Libertarians-Don-t-Exist?loadcomm=1#comment-1102546

-Why your anti corporate movement is funded by corporations.
bf: Corporate funding is not a strike against the liberty movement. (corporate money does not taint a supposedly anti corporate movement? O RLY?)
-Your double standards on 'coercion by threat of violence' as it pertains to private property.
bf: You're trying to compare defensive and offensive violence. Fail. (So, you do support coercion by threat of violence under some circumstances. Isn't that hypocritical?)
-An example of a successful modern society that doesn't tax.
bf: irrelevant [NOT AN ANSWER]
-Your use of deceptive slogans and frames in lieu of an actual argument.
bf: No I don't (Yes you do, statist is your most frequent political slogan.) [NOT AN ANSWER]
-Your frequent use of 'begging the question'.
Where have I proposed a premise as truth that requires proof? ("Taxing is theft" is the main one) [NOT AN ANSWER]
-The striking similarities between your own opinion and corporate opinion.
bf:Like your striking similarities to white land owners and their democratic belief in slavery? [NOT AN ANSWER]
-How markets reward violence, labor exploitation and pollution.
bf: this is unfounded [NOT AN ANSWER]

In this thread.
-Do you now believe climate change is real?
-Do you now support more stringent measures on dealing with climate change?
bf: You're the king of inference. [NOT AN ANSWER]

9 questions asked. 2 questions answered.