In a recent — and testy — press conference, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin cast doubt on accuracy of the cables, asking whether the U.S. diplomats writing in the leaked cables can be considered a “crystal clear source of information.” But his saved his tartest quote to slam what he sees as the hypocritical contrast between the West’s democracy promotion in Russia and the multi-pronged attack on WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.
“So, you know, as they say in the countryside, some people’s cows can moo, but yours should keep quiet. So I would like to shoot the puck back at our American colleagues,” Putin snarked, questioning whether Assange’s arrest in the U.K. represented “full democracy.”
Again: When Ron Paul and Vladmir Putin are the reasonable ones in a conversation about democracy and freedom of speech, it's time to rethink your steps.
In a recent — and testy — press conference, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin cast doubt on accuracy of the cables, asking whether the U.S. diplomats writing in the leaked cables can be considered a “crystal clear source of information.” But his saved his tartest quote to slam what he sees as the hypocritical contrast between the West’s democracy promotion in Russia and the multi-pronged attack on WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.
“So, you know, as they say in the countryside, some people’s cows can moo, but yours should keep quiet. So I would like to shoot the puck back at our American colleagues,” Putin snarked, questioning whether Assange’s arrest in the U.K. represented “full democracy.”
Fuck you Putin
How many journalists have been murdered in Russia?
Former President Bill Clinton made a surprise appearance at President Barack Obama's side on Friday to back the tax cut compromise Obama negotiated with Republicans.
"I don't believe there is a better deal out there," Clinton told reporters in the White House briefing room who'd been summoned at a moment's notice to see the former chief executive back the current one. Clinton and Obama had just finished a private meeting in the Oval Office.
Hey so I never did past Reagan and Bush on my American political history course
Was Clinton terrible? I always thought he was OK from what I picked up around and about, but he's basically a blind spot in my learning.
Also the early Roman Emperors are great. Out of the first five only one can be said to have died from natural causes, and he was a ruthless motherfucker who knew how to get shit done.
He isn't a terrible president that we will look back on and universally berate.
He is widely loved by those in the democratic party,
and during his time in office, viscerally hated by republicans.
Many would argue that his popularity has less to do with his actions as president,
but more from his personal charisma and from having his presidency during an economic rise
Many also say that he has been a bigger and more successful political force as an ex-president.
So you don't think it's significant that Western, democratic leaders are acting in a fashion somewhat, similar to Mr. Putin's government, then?
Well since I don't think that Assange has been arrested because of the intervention of any Western democratic leaders, no (I think he has been arrested because someone in Interpol wants a nice shiny new car for Christmas). Now we don't know that Assange is a rapist, there's been no conviction yet. We should be careful there. But there has been an accusation and he needs to answer for that in court where the truth will hopefully out.
As I have said many times
Wikileaks is great when it releases evidence of wrongdoing and I support this
But when it releases publically irrelevant and potentially damaging information then I get mad because that helps no-one
And part of the reason that it does the latter is the fact that Assange has admitted an anti-American bias and he has influence over the group
So you don't think it's significant that Western, democratic leaders are acting in a fashion somewhat, similar to Mr. Putin's government, then?
by arresting a rapist
no I'm fairly certain that is dissimilar than having him meet a tragic fate like choking on a bullet
Call me old fashioned-- now I know this is all of the Marx I've been reading talking, so forgive me here-- but I'm fairly certain being arrested for something does not mean you are that thing. Insane, I know, but that's college for you.
Also, thank you for taking my comment in the black and white spirit in which I wrote it. Others might be tempted to pause for a moment, but that's for those without strong knee muscles. Not guys like you and me.
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
if assange had been arrested for releasing mostly russian (i almost typed soviet) documents, he would be dead or in a fucking gulag in the caucus mountains.
I think Pip might have made that comment out of emotion
but really what we can say is that the rape charge exists and existed regardless of Assange's involvements with wikileaks.
So we can say here that arresting a man for rape charges and Anna Politkovskaya getting shot in her apartment building are different things. Let me remind you that in the US releases such as the Pentagon Papers and Watergate did not result in convictions against the press, so in that regard they have a much better record than Russia does even in the last ten years.
Solar on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
So you don't think it's significant that Western, democratic leaders are acting in a fashion somewhat, similar to Mr. Putin's government, then?
Well since I don't think that Assange has been arrested because of the intervention of any Western democratic leaders, no (I think he has been arrested because someone in Interpol wants a nice shiny new car for Christmas). Now we don't know that Assange is a rapist, there's been no conviction yet. We should be careful there. But there has been an accusation and he needs to answer for that in court where the truth will hopefully out.
As I have said many times
Wikileaks is great when it releases evidence of wrongdoing and I support this
But when it releases publically irrelevant and potentially damaging information then I get mad because that helps no-one
And part of the reason that it does the latter is the fact that Assange has admitted an anti-American bias and he has influence over the group
Those are some good points. I guess we could argue about the intentions of Interpol regarding the rape charges, but I think when you take that and combine it with things like Joseph Lieberman wanting to investigate the NY Times, Mastercard and Paypal cutting off Wikileaks' means of funding, or the general consensus of political pundits regarding who is and isn't a traitor, I start to see a pattern emerge. There are decent reasons for all of these things that have happened to Wikileaks and its associates, but taken as a whole, it's really rather depressing.
It's a pattern that doesn't exactly make me feel too confident in our politicians, which I guess isn't anything new now that I think about it.
The guy obviously needs to be held accountable for the rape charges, though. I'm really refering to the opposition to Assange and the organization as a whole. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's rather obvious that no one would give a fuck about the charges against him unless he was the dickbag from Wikileaks.
I don't know which part of that is the most depressing.
And, regarding their bias and their intention (which I think is a somewhat moot point), Wikileaks has certainly done more than a few stupid, misguided, and irresponsible things (Collateral Murder and their recent release of critical, American infrastructure sights leaps to mind), but I'd rather live in a world with insitutions like Wikileaks than without them. Furthermore, any attack on them and their release of information is obviously going to have consequences on journalism and whistleblowers in the future. An attack on them is an attack on us all and I don't think you need to gun anyone down to see that there's serious, horrific consequences when you begin to criminalize free speech.
So you don't think it's significant that Western, democratic leaders are acting in a fashion somewhat, similar to Mr. Putin's government, then?
Well since I don't think that Assange has been arrested because of the intervention of any Western democratic leaders, no (I think he has been arrested because someone in Interpol wants a nice shiny new car for Christmas). Now we don't know that Assange is a rapist, there's been no conviction yet. We should be careful there. But there has been an accusation and he needs to answer for that in court where the truth will hopefully out.
As I have said many times
Wikileaks is great when it releases evidence of wrongdoing and I support this
But when it releases publically irrelevant and potentially damaging information then I get mad because that helps no-one
And part of the reason that it does the latter is the fact that Assange has admitted an anti-American bias and he has influence over the group
Those are some good points. I guess we could argue about the intentions of Interpol regarding the rape charges, but I think when you take that and combine it with things like Joseph Lieberman wanting to investigate the NY Times, Mastercard and Paypal cutting off Wikileaks' means of funding, or the general consensus of political pundits regarding who is and isn't a traitor, I start to see a pattern emerge. There are decent reasons for all of these things that have happened to Wikileaks and its associates, but taken as a whole, it's really rather depressing.
It's a pattern that doesn't exactly make me feel too confident in our politicians, which I guess isn't anything new now that I think about it.
And, regarding their bias and their intention (which I think is a somewhat moot point), Wikileaks has certainly done more than a few stupid, misguided, and irresponsible things (Collateral Murder and their recent release of critical, American infrastructure sights leaps to mind), but I'd rather live in a world with insitutions like Wikileaks than without them. Furthermore, any attack on them and their release of information is obviously going to have consequences on journalism and whistleblowers in the future. An attack on them is an attack on us all and I don't think you need to gun anyone down to see that there's serious, horrific consequences when you begin to criminalize free speech.
Yes but Lieberman is unlikely to get any form of conviction, he's just wasting time and trying to make those who stand against that investigation seem un-American. In American the threats against freedom of speech and the free press are much smaller than in Russia and the ranks of those who stand by to fight it considerably larger. Remember that while you have Lieberman you also have guys on the other side fighting for this kind of thing like yes, I think Obama is suitable here.
And an attack on them is not an attack on all of us. I do not condone Wikileaks reckless and irresponsible actions and think they should stop releasing information which is not relevant to public interest but potentially diplomatically damaging. I do not think that saying "this is wrong" is an attack on free speech so much as it living in the real world.
And you need to be careful to avoid the slippery slope here, because Assange is not dead. He is in a UK jail waiting to be transferred to Sweden where he will face rape allegations. He has not been charged with espionage by the US and is not even in US custody (yet, but as you said you don't want to assume that Assange was a rapist before trail so you can't assume the US government will get a hold of Assange and charge him until they do that).
There has been no attack on Free Speech in American recent history which in any way compares to the level of corruption and subdual of that right in Russia within the last ten years. Yes it is not absolute, as Ubik said, but it is relatively much better in the US than Russia. Putin saying "you guys are not so great" is rediculous because his side is so much worse it's not even funny. You think it's the same then you need to get some perspective. So many times I hear watergate as evidence of how the system fails. No. Wrong. Watergate is evidence that the system works because Nixon was essentially removed from office by journalists with evidence of crimes. This is a similar state of affairs, though a different situation.
no evidence has been released to the public.
2 women have issued a complaint and the review of the complaint has been altered
with the intervention of higher criminal analysts to include 1 rape charge.
There is no way of definitively accusing anything at this point of the game.
Virgil_Leads_You on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Posts
Dude was a boss.
We talkin' about Salah al-Din in here?
Dude was a stone cold badass.
This motherfucker right here is the reason anyone remembers the Ayuubids at all.
SteamID: Baroque And Roll
a shame he didn't make it into civ 5.
http://beta.humugus.com/index.php/auth/register/inv/1966
how dare he!
the ball is in our court
From Canada
Fuck you Putin
How many journalists have been murdered in Russia?
How much corruption is there in your government?
That's right get out
by arresting a rapist
no I'm fairly certain that is dissimilar than having him meet a tragic fate like choking on a bullet
He isn't a terrible president that we will look back on and universally berate.
He is widely loved by those in the democratic party,
and during his time in office, viscerally hated by republicans.
Many would argue that his popularity has less to do with his actions as president,
but more from his personal charisma and from having his presidency during an economic rise
Many also say that he has been a bigger and more successful political force as an ex-president.
Well since I don't think that Assange has been arrested because of the intervention of any Western democratic leaders, no (I think he has been arrested because someone in Interpol wants a nice shiny new car for Christmas). Now we don't know that Assange is a rapist, there's been no conviction yet. We should be careful there. But there has been an accusation and he needs to answer for that in court where the truth will hopefully out.
As I have said many times
Wikileaks is great when it releases evidence of wrongdoing and I support this
But when it releases publically irrelevant and potentially damaging information then I get mad because that helps no-one
And part of the reason that it does the latter is the fact that Assange has admitted an anti-American bias and he has influence over the group
Also, thank you for taking my comment in the black and white spirit in which I wrote it. Others might be tempted to pause for a moment, but that's for those without strong knee muscles. Not guys like you and me.
Just look at those fuckers go.
I would suggest that you wait on calling a man a rapist until there is proof and consensus of it.
but really what we can say is that the rape charge exists and existed regardless of Assange's involvements with wikileaks.
So we can say here that arresting a man for rape charges and Anna Politkovskaya getting shot in her apartment building are different things. Let me remind you that in the US releases such as the Pentagon Papers and Watergate did not result in convictions against the press, so in that regard they have a much better record than Russia does even in the last ten years.
It's a pattern that doesn't exactly make me feel too confident in our politicians, which I guess isn't anything new now that I think about it.
The guy obviously needs to be held accountable for the rape charges, though. I'm really refering to the opposition to Assange and the organization as a whole. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's rather obvious that no one would give a fuck about the charges against him unless he was the dickbag from Wikileaks.
I don't know which part of that is the most depressing.
And, regarding their bias and their intention (which I think is a somewhat moot point), Wikileaks has certainly done more than a few stupid, misguided, and irresponsible things (Collateral Murder and their recent release of critical, American infrastructure sights leaps to mind), but I'd rather live in a world with insitutions like Wikileaks than without them. Furthermore, any attack on them and their release of information is obviously going to have consequences on journalism and whistleblowers in the future. An attack on them is an attack on us all and I don't think you need to gun anyone down to see that there's serious, horrific consequences when you begin to criminalize free speech.
That is sort of what I meant
rather than "Pip actually thinks that people can be declared guilty before trail etc"
But whatever
bumpin this
Yes but Lieberman is unlikely to get any form of conviction, he's just wasting time and trying to make those who stand against that investigation seem un-American. In American the threats against freedom of speech and the free press are much smaller than in Russia and the ranks of those who stand by to fight it considerably larger. Remember that while you have Lieberman you also have guys on the other side fighting for this kind of thing like yes, I think Obama is suitable here.
And an attack on them is not an attack on all of us. I do not condone Wikileaks reckless and irresponsible actions and think they should stop releasing information which is not relevant to public interest but potentially diplomatically damaging. I do not think that saying "this is wrong" is an attack on free speech so much as it living in the real world.
And you need to be careful to avoid the slippery slope here, because Assange is not dead. He is in a UK jail waiting to be transferred to Sweden where he will face rape allegations. He has not been charged with espionage by the US and is not even in US custody (yet, but as you said you don't want to assume that Assange was a rapist before trail so you can't assume the US government will get a hold of Assange and charge him until they do that).
There has been no attack on Free Speech in American recent history which in any way compares to the level of corruption and subdual of that right in Russia within the last ten years. Yes it is not absolute, as Ubik said, but it is relatively much better in the US than Russia. Putin saying "you guys are not so great" is rediculous because his side is so much worse it's not even funny. You think it's the same then you need to get some perspective. So many times I hear watergate as evidence of how the system fails. No. Wrong. Watergate is evidence that the system works because Nixon was essentially removed from office by journalists with evidence of crimes. This is a similar state of affairs, though a different situation.
NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS
I CAN STAND ON THE STREET SPEWING HATE-SPEECH AND THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO SHIT ABOUT IT
literally know people who think this way
well, you can
you cannot however do things like reveal state secrets or make speech than can be construed as actually threatening to others safety
thusfar I think it's just he said she said
No there are allegations with substantial enough evidence to bring him to trail
But innocent until proven etc.
I hope he is not because I'd rather that women were't raped by Assange (or anyone else)
But apart from that we have no idea, because we are not the Swedish prosecution team.
No she thought he wasn't wearing one and said stop
he apparently did not stop
which if true means, well, I don't need to say
But it might not be, again, we here do not know.
no
he was asked mid coitus to stop because the condom broke and he did not
that is what one of the women accused him of
2 women have issued a complaint and the review of the complaint has been altered
with the intervention of higher criminal analysts to include 1 rape charge.
There is no way of definitively accusing anything at this point of the game.
because
come on the dude looks like a roophy fan