this should be common knowledge and totally non-controversial.
but in my country people are so saturated by materialism and actually judge their own value by their ability to purchase and how much money they make.

and they wonder why they need medications to:ease their anxiety,"balance" their brain chemicals,help them sleep,help them stay awake and alert.

i deal with this on a weekly basis and it has been getting worse.
normal people spending so much energy to project this so-called "perfect' life,when the reality is they are broken and disillusioned.

it is not an easy thing to tell someone that the life they had been leading was a lie and not the reality they may have actually wanted for themselves.

that they had become slaves to a system that sought only to extract value from them,while reciprocating nothing in return.

freeing people from the invisible chains that bind them is a process that takes time.i am not always successful but it can be done and it is a worthy challenge.

while i appreciated the words in this talk i have to admit it has made me a tad sad....this should be common knowledge.

my country has terminal spiritual cancer....
im going to go watch some cartoons now,or have a good cry...

I do agree with what you said, and I'm not suggesting that military and police forces are not forced to take comparable or greater risks while still providing benefit.

The fact still remains though that he's disingenuous in professing that he is able to wholly remove the harm from the information he releases. He doesn't explicitly say it in this video but I have heard him say it in the past.

I understand that there's an important PR angle and the fact that everything in the public eye is taken at face value does not allow him to say anything more nuanced than that. I just find it quite jarring compared to his otherwise brutal honesty.>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^RedSky:
My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions.
I'm really sick of that argument.
If that's the litmus test, then lets just line up and shoot all the militaries/governments/police forces of the world, because not only can't they guarantee that, they have a track record of actually killing people.
Nothing is risk free, people die of food born illnesses all the time, doesn't mean all restaurant owners should go to jail.
If Democracy is good, and an informed populous is good for Democracy, then Wikileaks is good, full stop

>> ^RedSky:
My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions.

I'm really sick of that argument.

If that's the litmus test, then lets just line up and shoot all the militaries/governments/police forces of the world, because not only can't they guarantee that, they have a track record of actually killing people.

Nothing is risk free, people die of food born illnesses all the time, doesn't mean all restaurant owners should go to jail.

If Democracy is good, and an informed populous is good for Democracy, then Wikileaks is good, full stop

why even have schiff as a guest if your going to put words in his mouth?
that was like watching pigs have sex,mildly amusing but you feel dirt afterward.
schiff makes a valid point about the free market,but what we have now is nothing resembling a free market.

It doesn't take an especially libertarian view to support ownership even if we don't own one though I wouldn't go as far as he did, sharks and such You're right that nothing is absolute, free speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater and start a stampede just to amuse yourself for instance. But we do need a justification a hell of a lot better than "it makes sense to me" before we infringe on a Constitutional right.

Where one right infringes on another we can and do make compromises including with guns but we'd better take the time to examine and justify that compromise first or we're also making the rest of it more open to compromise as well, intended or not. Opinion and preference should have nothing to do with it outside of the question of do we want to change the Constitution itself. That we can do if you can raise the votes for it but as long as it stands that Amendment means just as much as the rest of the document does. Used to at least, I'm not sure how much the whole document means after the last few years.