Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????


Censorship Does Not End Well:

How America learned to stop worrying and put Mark Zuckerberg in charge of everything

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/facebook-censorship-alex-jones-710497/

Excerpt:

Were I Alex Jones, I would think Alex Jones was a false-flag operation, cooked up to discredit the idea of a free press.
Moreover, Jones probably does violate all of those platforms’ Terms of Service. I personally don’t believe his Sandy Hook rants — in which he accused grieving parents of being actors in an anti-gun conspiracy — are protected speech, at least not according to current libel and defamation law. Even some conservative speech activists seem to agree.
And yet: I didn’t celebrate when Jones was banned. Collectively, all these stories represent a revolutionary moment in media. Jones is an incidental player in a much larger narrative.

nan said:


drummerboy said:
nan,
you didn't really expect me to read that post, did you? It had nothing to do with our point of contention - which is simply that you keep on lying, yes lying, about the Dem's supposed focus on nothing but Russia and Trump for the mid-terms. You're just repeating horsh!t that you're hearing on your news sources - just assuming that it's true.
 I proved my point with that.  The Dems have nothing but Trump, Russia, and photo ops in Mexican restaurants.  I saw your post on LOST's thread where you said Pelosi does not have to do policy.  Yes she does.  She should be saying what the Democrats stand for cause no one has a clue, including the Democrats.
edited to add:  I just found this!


No, Democrats Don’t Need a National Platform for the Midterms

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/democrats-dont-need-a-national-platform-for-the-midterms.html

You didn't prove your point or anything else with that post. It was all gish gallop.

You STILL have not responded to my original question.

And you never will.

eta: you should read that article you linked to. You might learn something.


drummerboy said:


nan said:


drummerboy said:
nan,
you didn't really expect me to read that post, did you? It had nothing to do with our point of contention - which is simply that you keep on lying, yes lying, about the Dem's supposed focus on nothing but Russia and Trump for the mid-terms. You're just repeating horsh!t that you're hearing on your news sources - just assuming that it's true.
 I proved my point with that.  The Dems have nothing but Trump, Russia, and photo ops in Mexican restaurants.  I saw your post on LOST's thread where you said Pelosi does not have to do policy.  Yes she does.  She should be saying what the Democrats stand for cause no one has a clue, including the Democrats.
edited to add:  I just found this!


No, Democrats Don’t Need a National Platform for the Midterms

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/democrats-dont-need-a-national-platform-for-the-midterms.html
You didn't prove your point or anything else with that post. It was all gish gallop.
You STILL have not responded to my original question.
And you never will.
eta: you should read that article you linked to. You might learn something.

 I answered your question.  Just because you did not like my answer does not mean I did not answer it.  I'm waiting for you to tell me what the Democrats stand for besides being better than Trump and against Russia.  


I didn't like your answer because it's as if I asked what color the sky was, and you said "oh look at these bananas".


drummerboy said:
I didn't like your answer because it's as if I asked what color the sky was, and you said "oh look at these bananas".

 I answered the question.  You can show me I'm wrong by pointing out what Democrats stand for besides being against Trump and Russia.


nan said:


dave said:
The threads here about Trump and Russia that nan and paul start are all about Trump and Russia.   If anyone goes to actual Democratic  party web sites, those are like 5-8% Trump and Russia [ETA: looks like even lower] and more about all the other issues.
Example
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform?source=homepage
 That's the 2016 platform--the one Bernie Sanders fought for and put Cornell West on the committee to get.  They don't use that one anymore.

 You can't just ignore it, even though lots of people did in 2016 when they claimed there was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Fun fact - one of the people who ignored the platform was Cornel West, who after he helped write it went on to endorse Jill ("No Difference Between the Major Parties") Stein.


nohero said:


nan said:

dave said:
The threads here about Trump and Russia that nan and paul start are all about Trump and Russia.   If anyone goes to actual Democratic  party web sites, those are like 5-8% Trump and Russia [ETA: looks like even lower] and more about all the other issues.
Example
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform?source=homepage
 That's the 2016 platform--the one Bernie Sanders fought for and put Cornell West on the committee to get.  They don't use that one anymore.
 You can't just ignore it, even though lots of people did in 2016 when they claimed there was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Fun fact - one of the people who ignored the platform was Cornel West, who after he helped write it went on to endorse Jill ("No Difference Between the Major Parties") Stein.

 That was specifically for 2016.  It has not been updated and has been forgotten.  It actually helps prove his point, since they don't even bother to change the date.


nan said:


nohero said:

nan said:

dave said:
The threads here about Trump and Russia that nan and paul start are all about Trump and Russia.   If anyone goes to actual Democratic  party web sites, those are like 5-8% Trump and Russia [ETA: looks like even lower] and more about all the other issues.
Example
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform?source=homepage
 That's the 2016 platform--the one Bernie Sanders fought for and put Cornell West on the committee to get.  They don't use that one anymore.
 You can't just ignore it, even though lots of people did in 2016 when they claimed there was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Fun fact - one of the people who ignored the platform was Cornel West, who after he helped write it went on to endorse Jill ("No Difference Between the Major Parties") Stein.
 That was specifically for 2016.  It has not been updated and has been forgotten.  It actually helps prove his point, since they don't even bother to change the date.

 That's a ridiculous complaint.  Parties adopt platforms at the conventions.  You don't "just change the date".  You're making up things to complain about.  

If you can't even admit that it represents the direction the Democrats are going, and their priorities, then nothing Mr. Drummerboy writes will convince you, either.

And congratulations on ignoring the mention of Professor West (who you brought up).  


nan said:


nohero said:

nan said:

dave said:
The threads here about Trump and Russia that nan and paul start are all about Trump and Russia.   If anyone goes to actual Democratic  party web sites, those are like 5-8% Trump and Russia [ETA: looks like even lower] and more about all the other issues.
Example
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform?source=homepage
 That's the 2016 platform--the one Bernie Sanders fought for and put Cornell West on the committee to get.  They don't use that one anymore.
 You can't just ignore it, even though lots of people did in 2016 when they claimed there was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Fun fact - one of the people who ignored the platform was Cornel West, who after he helped write it went on to endorse Jill ("No Difference Between the Major Parties") Stein.
 That was specifically for 2016.  It has not been updated and has been forgotten.  It actually helps prove his point, since they don't even bother to change the date.

 https://www.gop.com/platform/

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

Let’s see what these two things have in common.


nohero said:


nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

dave said:
The threads here about Trump and Russia that nan and paul start are all about Trump and Russia.   If anyone goes to actual Democratic  party web sites, those are like 5-8% Trump and Russia [ETA: looks like even lower] and more about all the other issues.
Example
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform?source=homepage
 That's the 2016 platform--the one Bernie Sanders fought for and put Cornell West on the committee to get.  They don't use that one anymore.
 You can't just ignore it, even though lots of people did in 2016 when they claimed there was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Fun fact - one of the people who ignored the platform was Cornel West, who after he helped write it went on to endorse Jill ("No Difference Between the Major Parties") Stein.
 That was specifically for 2016.  It has not been updated and has been forgotten.  It actually helps prove his point, since they don't even bother to change the date.
 That's a ridiculous complaint.  Parties adopt platforms at the conventions.  You don't "just change the date".  You're making up things to complain about.  
If you can't even admit that it represents the direction the Democrats are going, and their priorities, then nothing Mr. Drummerboy writes will convince you, either.
And congratulations on ignoring the mention of Professor West (who you brought up).  

 So, show me some current establishment Democrats pointing to this platform and standing on it. 


ridski said:


nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

dave said:
The threads here about Trump and Russia that nan and paul start are all about Trump and Russia.   If anyone goes to actual Democratic  party web sites, those are like 5-8% Trump and Russia [ETA: looks like even lower] and more about all the other issues.
Example
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform?source=homepage
 That's the 2016 platform--the one Bernie Sanders fought for and put Cornell West on the committee to get.  They don't use that one anymore.
 You can't just ignore it, even though lots of people did in 2016 when they claimed there was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Fun fact - one of the people who ignored the platform was Cornel West, who after he helped write it went on to endorse Jill ("No Difference Between the Major Parties") Stein.
 That was specifically for 2016.  It has not been updated and has been forgotten.  It actually helps prove his point, since they don't even bother to change the date.
 https://www.gop.com/platform/
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
Let’s see what these two things have in common.

 I love how the Republican platform says:

  Leaders should serve people, not special interests

Looks like neither party pays much attention to these platforms.

edited to add:  Oh, I looked to fast, that was just what people said they thought should be included.  It was not actually included in the platform.  I did see this though that I could agree with

Audit the Pentagon
No major part of the Department of Defense has ever passed an audit. Republican leaders in Congress have called for a full financial audit of the
Pentagon to ensure that every dollar spent is truly benefitting our national security. Every taxpayer must be prepared to pass an audit, and we urge
Congress to demand the same level of accountability from the Pentagon and the Department of Defense. 
And they followed through on that too!  I believe they found $800 million unacountable.  Still both parties voted to increase the military budget by a huge amount.  They have that in common.


They were both written in the same year.


ridski said:


nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

dave said:
The threads here about Trump and Russia that nan and paul start are all about Trump and Russia.   If anyone goes to actual Democratic  party web sites, those are like 5-8% Trump and Russia [ETA: looks like even lower] and more about all the other issues.
Example
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform?source=homepage
 That's the 2016 platform--the one Bernie Sanders fought for and put Cornell West on the committee to get.  They don't use that one anymore.
 You can't just ignore it, even though lots of people did in 2016 when they claimed there was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Fun fact - one of the people who ignored the platform was Cornel West, who after he helped write it went on to endorse Jill ("No Difference Between the Major Parties") Stein.
 That was specifically for 2016.  It has not been updated and has been forgotten.  It actually helps prove his point, since they don't even bother to change the date.
 https://www.gop.com/platform/
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
Let’s see what these two things have in common.

 They both contain words?


Peter Van Buren, and anti-war conservative was banned from Twitter for life, even his archives were removed.  Now, Caitlin Johnston was just suspended from Twitter.  They are going after more than Alex Jones.


nan said:
... Caitlin Johnston was just suspended from Twitter. ...

 Best news I've heard all week. They should take away her keyboard.


drummerboy said:


nan said:
... Caitlin Johnston was just suspended from Twitter. ...
 Best news I've heard all week. They should take away her keyboard.

Not surprised you are fine with censorship.  Sadly for you, she is back.  I'm glad that at least for now one of the few voices focused on "rejecting the establishment-imposed narrative" are still around.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/twitter-has-shut-down-my-account-for-abusing-john-mccain-25e7be909f4d

Here is her discussion about why she was banned:

I haven’t abused anybody, and I’ve been observing extreme caution with my language for the last few days ever since I made a political tweet about John McCain which drew the wrath of #Resistance Twitter. The offending tweet reads as follows:
“Friendly public service reminder that John McCain has devoted his entire political career to slaughtering as many human beings as possible at every opportunity, and the world will be improved when he finally dies.”
I posted this four days ago when John McCain was trending because Donald Trump didn’t pay him any respect when signing the bloated NDAA military spending bill that was (appropriately) named after him. My reason for doing so was simple: the establishment pundits responsible for manipulating the way Americans think and vote have been aggressively promulgating the narrative that McCain is a hero and a saint, and I think it’s very important to disrupt that narrative. If we allow them to canonize this warmongering psychopath, then they’ll have normalized and sanctified his extensive record of pushing for psychopathic acts of military violence throughout his entire political career. They’ll have helped manufacture support for war and the military-industrial complex war whores who facilitate it. Saying we’ll be glad when he’s gone is a loud and unequivocal way of rejecting that establishment-imposed narrative.

Here is the important quote from the article:

I’ve been writing about the dangers of internet censorship so much lately because this is becoming a major problem. In a corporatist system of government, wherein government power and corporate power are not separated in any meaningful way, corporate censorship is state censorship.The plutocratic class which effectively owns the US government also owns all the mass media, allowing that plutocratic class to efficiently manipulate the way Americans think and vote so as to manufacture public consent for the establishment status quo upon which those plutocratic empires are built.

nan said:


dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
Treating them as public utilities would result in more limits, not fewer.
 No, because then the first amendment would apply in a way it does not for private companies.
 Ah, you didn't say that the state would take ownership. That brings up a whole list of other issues. I imagine we disagree on whether the government ought to be able to control the flow of information. This would be monumental shift away from historical public utilities since they were always around infrastructure.
 Well, maybe it would be run like the electric company.  This is all new.  I just know that we should not be censoring people.  It starts with the most odious like Jones and then it moves on to people like Jimmy Dore or anyone who does not buy into Russiagate, and so forth.  We need safeguards.  I should not be the only one saying this or noticing.

 You’re not. Laura Ingraham agrees, also.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1035946893237542913?s=21


With reference to the title of this thread it appears that same has not happened.


Daniel Ellsberg speaks out during the online vigil for Julian Assange.  He also mentions Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden and feels they are all similar to himself. 


Ellsberg Says Assange, as a Journalist, Can’t Be Tried Under Espionage Act

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/09/05/ellsberg-says-assange-as-a-journalist-cant-be-tried-under-espionage-act/

In an interview with Consortium News Editor-in-Chief Joe Lauria, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says the Espionage Act, under which he was indicted, cannot apply to Julian Assange because he is a journalist. 
Speaking during an online vigil for Assange organized by Unity4J.com, Ellsberg told Lauria that the motive for U.S. leaders to protect their secrets and go after Assange has nothing to do with their mantra of “national security.” 
“The purpose is not to protect national security, but to protect the ***** of the people who wrote the directives” of classified material, most of which should never have been classified, Ellsberg said. 
Ellsberg, 87, said that as a publisher and journalist, the Espionage Act cannot be applied to Assange, as it should not have been applied to Ellsberg for non-spying activities when he released the Pentagon Papers revealing that the U.S. government long knew it was losing the Vietnam War but continued lying to the American public. 
“Julian is not a whistle blower per se, but a facilitator of whistleblowing,” Ellsberg said, “…the point being that as a journalist, he can not fairly be tried under the Espionage Act.”
As one who only received classified material and published it, “It is essential that Julian Assange not be indicted, be convicted, or be extradited to the United States,” Ellsberg said. 

As one who only received classified material and published it, “It is essential that Julian Assange not be indicted, be convicted, or be extradited to the United States,” Ellsberg said.

So says Mr. Ellsberg.


To those who deny that censorship of unpopular ideas eventually leads to censorship of popular ideas -- it's already begun:

https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-weekly-standard-fact-check-thinkprogress-6176df1d5749/


Adding on to Paul's point above, Mother Jones magazine has moved to the right in the past few years, and now they are supporting censorship on what they have decided are "toxic ideas" done by "political extremists."   Do you we really need to be protected from people like this guy?  



DaveSchmidt said:


As one who only received classified material and published it, “It is essential that Julian Assange not be indicted, be convicted, or be extradited to the United States,” Ellsberg said.
So says Mr. Ellsberg.

Assange is not just receiving material and publishing it.  That's like saying the Pope is just a guy in a white hat.


nan said:
Adding on to Paul's point above, Mother Jones magazine has moved to the right in the past few years, and now they are supporting censorship on what they have decided are "toxic ideas" done by "political extremists."   Do you we really need to be protected from people like this guy?  


Did you read the MJ report? Did MJ say that the Federal Reserve video was monetized?

Can I tell that Corbett is FOS within 2 minutes?

What's happening on YT is kind of serious as it is radicalizing a significant part of the population with severely delusional b.s.

oh - and shows us where MJ is supporting censorship. The article is about how people are gaming the recommendation algorithms.


nan said:
Adding on to Paul's point above, Mother Jones magazine has moved to the right in the past few years, and now they are supporting censorship on what they have decided are "toxic ideas" done by "political extremists."   Do you we really need to be protected from people like this guy?  



AGAIN - please stop using nutjobs to make a point:

James Corbett is an anarcho-capitalist youtuber and conspiracy theorist. Seen by some to be an indie "new journalist" accused of being Russian propaganda fake news.  Others are less enamored. He claims to analyze, deconstruct, re-contextualize, and clarify Western propaganda in The Corbett Report, YouTube, Global Research TV and other shows and websites such as ex-FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post, NewsBud, and occasional events.

The Corbett Report
Supported by donations, subscriptions, and open source journalism, James Corbett discusses statism, 9-11 conspiracy theories, chemtrails, climate change denial and anti-dogma conspiracies that mainstream media would never discuss, as well as making claims about Obama's NWO.

In addition to the history of oil, power, and economics, alleged false flag events like the Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories, the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and Operation Gladio,. James Corbett claims to detail scandalous corruption, injustices, and expose conspiracies, psy-ops, black-ops, and the covert "deep-state secret", "ghost politics", globalist control, and domination agendas of the New World Order advocating a "revolution of the mind" to counter-cultural brainwashing dogmas to ultimately foil all centralized governments' monopolistic use of violence.

This guy is another one that RT will prop up to no end.  He's probably a regular on "Fault Lines".


The Mother Jones article isn't supporting censorship. I can't believe anyone would base an opinion on the video instead of just reading the damn article. 

And Mother Jones is getting falsely accused of moving to the right because they publish David Corn, who is on the **** list because he undercuts the anti-investogation narrative about Russia. 


Good question in the Mother Jones article:

MJ: One way these posters define themselves is by saying they are underdogs who are being attacked by mainstream society. Do you have any thoughts on how to de-platform or de-monetize these creators if they just turn around and point to those efforts as examples of the very discrimination they can use to bolster their claims?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.