Where is Julian Assange???

[belamyi]

Again. Assange is the only journalist with a 100% accuracy record.

You say funny he never exposed "worst regimes", but he never went digging. He printed what was leaked to him. He is not the kind of journalist that digs or even researches. He doesn't need to. The ones doing the crimes admit their wrong doings on letterhead and other official docs

Also what the US and other Western counties did ranks right up there with the "worst regimes" because The Untied States and the others are some of the worst regimes. You just like them.

He didn't expose those you dislike not because he is on their side, but because no one gave him proof of what people already thought they were doing.

​

Only make clear that we do not like "them", we simply ARE them, for the good like for the bad.
It's not about love or partisanship, mere awareness, like with the rest of what you said.

 

[TickTockMan]

Only make clear that we do not like "them", we simply ARE them, for the good like for the bad.
It's not about love or partisanship, mere awareness, like with the rest of what you said.

I mean like democrats; while jeering republicans or "worst regimes". Assange showed dems do the same things. Dems and people like Rareboy loved Assange when he was pointing out crimes of Bush, but when he kept doing the same thing and pointed out of crimes of Obama, Assange became non grata.

Funny considering how much they hated Bush, but now like him. In a few years will they like Trump?

 

[me203]

Funny considering how much they hated Bush, but now like him. In a few years will they like Trump?

Funny,isn't it? I've wondered the same thing.

 

[belamyi]

I mean like democrats; while jeering republicans or "worst regimes". Assange showed dems do the same things. Dems and people like Rareboy loved Assange when he was pointing out crimes of Bush, but when he kept doing the same thing and pointed out of crimes of Obama, Assange became non grata.

Funny considering how much they hated Bush, but now like him. In a few years will they like Trump?

That is why "we" are a global democracy: WE ALL are it... like I always say, democracy is about being all together in euqality, pretending each group is the real center about which everything revolves, and the rest are like shit or pests they tolerate while they are in humour to laugh at them.

I am usually accused of bipartisanship or incoherence when I merely point out facts and acts, but people need to boil it all down to "whose side are you" to be able to deal with and somehow accept it.

 

[rareboy]

They are lazy and that is a great thing. They leak and print without any spin.


Again "liberals" loved Assange and others until they told about things democrats did.

You don't get it do you? He was just the useful idiot for the FSB when all was said and done. He was no 'journalist'. Journalism requires investigation and analysis.

He was just a highly paid mouthpiece who brought nothing to the story.

 

[belamyi]

You don't get it do you? He was just the useful idiot for the FSB when all was said and done. He was no 'journalist'. Journalism requires investigation and analysis.

He was just a highly paid mouthpiece who brought nothing to the story.

You have a very exquisite understanding of journalism, forgetting that, like any mass-oriented activity, it is all about the satisfaction of the audience and the profit of the political and business bosses, not about the quality and attention given to the product delivered,
and, anyway, do not forget what the heroic "investigation and analysis" in the Bernstein&Woodward-style equally serves as useful idiocy, unwillingly playing the part of shakers of a system that is allowed to be shaken only where and when it is allowed to be so.

 

[TickTockMan]

You don't get it do you? He was just the useful idiot for the FSB when all was said and done. He was no 'journalist'. Journalism requires investigation and analysis.

He was just a highly paid mouthpiece who brought nothing to the story.

I do get it.

Your kind calls everyone you disagree with a Russian puppet. You have been doing it for years with no proof.

Even if he was a paid Russian puppet reporters are not supposed to have a side. You said it in your own post. It is still a story. All he did was post proof of crimes without commentary. Now people like you are mad at the messenger, but not the ones that did the crimes.

 

[belamyi]

"and, anyway, do not forget That the heroic "investigation and analysis" in the Bernstein&Woodward-style equally serves as useful idiocy, unwillingly playing the part of pretending shakers of a system that is allowed to be shaken only where and when it is allowed to be so".

Better that way.

 

[rareboy]

I do get it.

Your kind calls everyone you disagree with a Russian puppet. You have been doing it for years with no proof.

Even if he was a paid Russian puppet reporters are not supposed to have a side. You said it in your own post. It is still a story. All he did was post proof of crimes without commentary. Now people like you are mad at the messenger, but not the ones that did the crimes.

There has been more than ample proof provided about the feed of stories through the FSB in order to undermine western liberal democracies.

If he was a paid Rzzn puppet, he has a side. He only released what they fed to him. Without doing any of the work of a journalist. If he had been leaking stories about inside the Kremlin the whole time that they didn't feed him and that would topple Putin, that would be proof he didn't have a side. He is just a propagandist, not a journalist.

And of course, it is interesting that once he was no longer a useful asset, the feed of western dirty deeds to him just dried up.

He is hopefully now a spent force who will fade into well deserved obscurity.

 

[TickTockMan]

There has been more than ample proof provided about the feed of stories through the FSB in order to undermine western liberal democracies.

If he was a paid Rzzn puppet, he has a side. He only released what they fed to him. Without doing any of the work of a journalist. If he had been leaking stories about inside the Kremlin the whole time that they didn't feed him and that would topple Putin, that would be proof he didn't have a side. He is just a propagandist, not a journalist.

And of course, it is interesting that once he was no longer a useful asset, the feed of western dirty deeds to him just dried up.

He is hopefully now a spent force who will fade into well deserved obscurity.

You are arguing he should have leaked information he didn't have to not have a side. Reality doesn't work that way. Assange is not a propagandist, he is the furthest from it.

Run of the mill democrats and others such as yourself have been saying Russia Russia Russia since the DNC and Hilary put out Russia interfered in a US election. Even the second in command of Homeland Security has said nothing happened that has not happened for years and that all superpower nations do to each other. Putin and Russia is still friendly to the US. Putin has openly mocked our politicians for degrading him and Russia all the while the US is still doing big business with and in Russia. Stop listening to the dog whistle.

How can you say he was no longer a "useful asset" causing his dirty deeds to dry up? He was in prison. How was he supposed tp keep publishing while incarcerated?

You are the only one propaganding.

 

[belamyi]

Stop listening to the dog whistle.

That was a most unfortunate choice of an expression, because it assumes that rare is sensitive to something to which you are totally deaf, and happy to be so

 

[belamyi]

If he had been leaking stories about inside the Kremlin the whole time that they didn't feed him and that would topple Putin,

Putin toppled by infoleaks

Wish it were that simple and easy

You mean to say that Assange preferred to leak from the West, because doing the same with Russia would have had him ending like a splattered poisoned tomato over a decade ago.

 

[TickTockMan]

That was a most unfortunate choice of an expression, because it assumes that rare is sensitive to something to which you are totally deaf, and happy to be so

Not being sensitive to something doesn't mean one is totally deaf to something. It just means it doesn't get as much of a reaction, if any. But I see your point.

 

[johaninsc]

I'm glad he's free.
it will be far easier for someone to reach out and give Stanky a well-deserved pat on the back of his head.