Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul stands up for Julian Assange
Politico ^ | 12/3/10 12:56 PM EST | ANDY BARR

Posted on 12/03/2010 1:30:26 PM PST by lormand

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-102 next last
To: OldDeckHand

How’s that tie in with post 46?


51 posted on 12/03/2010 2:27:19 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
"IMO, the worst reactions from these leaks are coming from people who always dismiss conspiracy theories. Now that things are coming to light, it just blows their minds."

Did you at least GLANCE at the Wiki article you linked here? They had 10 inquiries into the Pearl Harbor attack. Guess how many of the 10 concluded that we had prior knowledge of the attack?

52 posted on 12/03/2010 2:28:00 PM PST by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
It is classified material that should never see the light of day.

I still maintain that Assange is a patsy, a small bit player in this mess.

Has any investigation been proposed, ferreting out the sources of "classified" data?

I am especially intrigued by the omission of what's NOT been released so far - IS THERE NOTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT 0BAMA??

53 posted on 12/03/2010 2:30:38 PM PST by Conservative Tsunami
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
"Obviously you did not read what I posted. Why don't you go back and check if I did not say:"

No. I understand perfectly what you said. Army PFCs, nor foreign journalists get to decide what should or should not be classified. Everything that is classified should be classified, just by virtue that it is. That blows your mind, right? Let me tell you why I think that's true.

We live in a representative republic where we elect people to manage our government. In our system, the Executive gets to decide solely, and without oversight what is or is not classified. Somebody has to be in charge. If we think too many things are classified, then we should elect a president who campaigns on just that platform - "I'm going to declassify more stuff". I wouldn't be hopeful such a platform would be compelling to many.

54 posted on 12/03/2010 2:32:22 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

Think of it this way: If someone anonymously sent you a file with a bunch of Chinese classified material and you posted it online, do you think you should be subject to arrest by the Chinese for espionage? You are basically just the publisher of the information.

We’re dealing with the actual person who broke the law here. I don’t know that we can go after Assange.


55 posted on 12/03/2010 2:33:32 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Assange is not a citizen of the United States of America.
Therefore he has no standing under our laws, either to be protected or to be prosecuted.

This is a sideshow.
We should really be going after the leakers and the lax security in our military and diplomatic corps.


56 posted on 12/03/2010 2:34:39 PM PST by Lorianne (During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ___ George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Point is, if we don’t have people willing to risk their own lives to get out the truth, we might never know it.

If governments and nasty rich people like Soros, Rothschilds or the Rockefellers didn’t have a history of evil doings, there would be no need for conspiracies.


57 posted on 12/03/2010 2:35:36 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; SnakeDoctor
"How’s that tie in with post 46?"

Honestly, he makes a good point. It's a complicated issue, to be sure. New York Times Co. v. United States goes far, but Assange does seem to be soliciting a crime. Would such solicitation actually be criminal under existing US law, and/or would existing Supreme Court precedent still inoculate them from criminal liability?

It's a good question, and one that very well may be answered as this case is fully litigated.

I think you would have 1A attorneys and national security experts making very compelling arguments, both.

58 posted on 12/03/2010 2:37:10 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: lormand
Mike Huckabee, who said this week that the source who leaked to the WikiLeaks founder should be tried for treason and executed if found guilty. And this guy wants to be President? What a dummy.
59 posted on 12/03/2010 2:37:32 PM PST by Lorianne (During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ___ George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
There’s nothing coming out of these *leaks* that seems anywhere near being treasonous.

The *leaks* do seem very selective and nothing earth-shattering this far. Self-serving IF your name is Hussein 0bama as a matter of fact.

COULD it serve primarily as a reason to shut-down and over-regulate the Internet?

60 posted on 12/03/2010 2:38:34 PM PST by Conservative Tsunami
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56

You do realize that being a DHS “domestic extremist” I could call you a kook too, right?


61 posted on 12/03/2010 2:38:36 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

If the conversations are “professional” in that they hold the other nations and leaders in proper respect then why should they be classified?

Granted things which talk of exact/non-hypothetical weapons and defenses do have some justification for being classified... but I think it would ALSO so us well to remember that Tom Clancy’s Hunt for Red October got him pulled in front of Congress [I believe] and questioned for the breaches of security regarding classified capabilities of submarines (which he reconstructed from non-classified sources if I remember).


62 posted on 12/03/2010 2:43:42 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame was celebrated by the Left and Hippies everywhere. Assange just attacked America and our progressive president. Now the Left doesn’t know what to do because on the one hand, he damages America which they see as a good thing but at the same time, he exposes the incompetence of the Marxist president.


63 posted on 12/03/2010 2:45:03 PM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
Assange runs a website that expressly solicits Americans with high clearance to steal and transmit classified information into their hands.

Actually, he runs a website that encourages anyone, anywhere, to send any otherwise publicly unavailable documents. The first stories WikiLeaks carried had nothing to do with America, and most of the releases haven't been related to our government. We just have the biggest and most famous ones.

My favorite was the Australian Internet censorship list. The Australian government blocks various web sites, supposedly only those related to child pornography and terrorism. The list was leaked, exposing that they'd blocked many other sites too, including some Christian sites. The hilarious part was the Australian government saying the leaked list was fake, but threatening prosecution for anyone caught distributing it.

64 posted on 12/03/2010 2:45:06 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Tsunami

Funny, I noticed the outcry over the ‘leaks’ intensified after it was hinted that a major US bank might be ‘outed’ over unethical and possibly illegal activity.......


65 posted on 12/03/2010 2:49:13 PM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: lormand

So what if somebody takes the information provided by this douche bag and uses it to against the United States? Not to mention the damage done to relations with our allies. Who the hell wants to have their dirty laundry aired when it should never have seen the light of day?

The “info dump”, has it has been oh-so-politically correct named, is still being poured over.
And at this point it doesn’t matter if we want him or not as it seems the Swedes or the Brits are going to nail him for rape.

Ya, real stand-up guy. We’ll probably next see Ron Paul with a “Free Assange” t-shirt on.


66 posted on 12/03/2010 2:51:06 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (What's black and white and red all over? HINT: Think White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yadent
Funny, I noticed the outcry over the ‘leaks’ intensified after it was hinted that a major US bank might be ‘outed’ over unethical and possibly illegal activity.......

YOU are on the ball, my friend.

This entire *leak* debacle - complete with the release of so-called *classified* documents hadn't been shut down as a major concern until then.

67 posted on 12/03/2010 2:54:13 PM PST by Conservative Tsunami
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame was celebrated by the Left and Hippies everywhere. Assange just attacked America and our progressive president. Now the Left doesn’t know what to do because on the one hand, he damages America which they see as a good thing but at the same time, he exposes the incompetence of the Marxist president.

Excellent observation.

If it indicts Bush, they'll LOVE Assange; If 0bama takes a hit, they'll be the first ones demanding his execution.

My prediction is 0bama won't get a glove laid on him. Call me a cynic of something that already stinks.

68 posted on 12/03/2010 2:58:36 PM PST by Conservative Tsunami
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Tsunami; yadent

It makes me wonder what info he has/had on the bank... and I don’t doubt for a second that there aren’t highly illegal and highly questionable things going on in our banks.


69 posted on 12/03/2010 3:00:29 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"If the conversations are “professional” in that they hold the other nations and leaders in proper respect then why should they be classified?"

Because those leaders may be taking great risks with their own constituents by cooperating with the US, helping us to secure our own interests.

For example, the Yememni leader, at great personal exposure to himself and his government, allowed us to launch attacks inside his country. That is going to be a HUGE problem for him with respect to his own extremists elements in his country. That leak, while not at all discussing America's "secrets", increases our risk at home and abroad.

70 posted on 12/03/2010 3:02:39 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

**You do realize that being a DHS “domestic extremist” I could call you a kook too, right?**

And just WHAT does that have to do with anything.. Call me KOOK if you like..

from your posts today... you’re a BIRTHER, a PAULTARD..and probably a TRUTHER too

Go sit at the CHILDREN’S TABLE you worthless liberal SCUMBAG


71 posted on 12/03/2010 3:03:38 PM PST by gwilhelm56 (OFFICER... when the TSA agent regains Consciousness.. Arrest him for Sexual Assault!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; yadent
You see - what got the World's dander up regarding Assange was NOT his threat of exposing US military and intel sources, but exposing BANKING "intel."

Hello.

72 posted on 12/03/2010 3:05:40 PM PST by Conservative Tsunami
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke
Letting 3.5 million folks have access to this stuff was beyond stupid. It's like removing the compartmentalization of information at our nuke labs and letting the secrets walk out the door.

By definition, SECRET material is not compartmentalized within the American audience, although we do have restrictions on release for some of it to foreign allies ("SECRET NOFORN" etc.). To get any classified information, you should have an appropriate clearance and a need to know. With SECRET, need to know is more on the honor system. It is not deemed important enough to require strict compartmentalization, and the overhead that comes with it. When we need strictly enforced compartmentalization, as you talk about above, it would be classified TOP SECRET and put under "Sensitive Compartmented Information" (TS/SCI). Then someone has to confirm you have a legitimate business need to know the information and you get "read on" to the information. There are other various categories of compartmentalization too.

For the record, none of this is restricted knowledge. I'm going from past experience, but you can find all this in public sources on American government security practices.

73 posted on 12/03/2010 3:07:25 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: lormand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haHXgFU7qNI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPs4bTcyfFI

Get after them! (I’ll watch from under cover)


74 posted on 12/03/2010 3:09:35 PM PST by Lorianne (During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ___ George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Tsunami

Hello indeed!!


75 posted on 12/03/2010 3:11:35 PM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56

You missed my point.
My point was that to execute someone based on them “wearing the label’ of kook is completely unjust and that that same label may just as easily be applied to you.

As to your acccusation of me being a birther, I’m sorry if you don’t share my opinion that the President’s qualifications should [pun intended] be unimpeachable and no question of the legitimacy of his position as commander-in-chief should exist.

As to the accusation of my being a truther, while I don’t believe that the government had a direct role in the 11 Sept attacks I would be utterly unsurprised to learn that the someone in the government took advantage of the chaos to do something inappropriate — human nature being what it is that should not be a bad bet on anyone’s part.

As for “being a paultard” I usually say nothing when I disagree with the man and something when I do.

Now, as for calling me a “liberal scumbag,” I would like either a detailed list-of-evidence or an apology.


76 posted on 12/03/2010 3:15:21 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Hm, good point; I hadn’t considered it.


77 posted on 12/03/2010 3:16:08 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Everything that is classified should be classified, just by virtue that it is.

It's a little more complicated than that. Every organization has people who are authorized to classify information. Otherwise, information is by default unclassified. But that's theory. Practice is that people slap an SECRET label on things all the time without it having been properly classified. Or they'll stick one classified fact into a document without properly labeling the paragraphs (each is supposed to get a classification), and label the whole document SECRET. Thus we have dozens of pages of unclassified material that is suddenly labeled as classified.

The government is currently undergoing a large declassification project. It's not because of any special need for transparency, but because over-classification creates a huge unnecessary administrative overhead.

78 posted on 12/03/2010 3:17:34 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Tsunami

I see it, I see it!
That’s what’s got me interested.


79 posted on 12/03/2010 3:17:39 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: lormand
“In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,” Paul said.

Okay, for starters how about liebertarians run as liebertarians instead of posing as Republicans, huh, like you have done for several terms and like your son just did??? That is what your Campaign for Liberty is all about, liebertarian infiltration of Republican clubs, organizations and campaigns.

You should know about lying, Mr. Paul. It's all you are about.

It would be interesting to know the truth about where all YOUR funding comes from, too. For example, how are you able to pay for 800 admissions to a conservative or Republican conference???

The TRUTH is Ron Paul, you are a FAR LEFT ANTI-AMERICAN TROLL on the U.S. political scene.

80 posted on 12/03/2010 3:34:06 PM PST by La Enchiladita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Paultards are Closet LIBERALS...they sound like one, they act like one, they debate like one, and they WHINE like one.

Whenever a paultard demands evidence, there is nothing left but .... apology... forgetit!


81 posted on 12/03/2010 3:37:55 PM PST by gwilhelm56 (OFFICER... when the TSA agent regains Consciousness.. Arrest him for Sexual Assault!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke
You'd have a better argument if you compared it to the putative Chinese missile launched off the California shore.

Oh yah, you and the "chemtrails conspiracy" people would get along fine...

82 posted on 12/03/2010 3:40:19 PM PST by La Enchiladita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56; null and void

>Whenever a paultard demands evidence, there is nothing left but .... apology... forgetit!

Ah, so I am a “paultard” by virtue of being accused and any request for evidence is null and void?
I’m REALLY glad you didn’t write the 6th Amendment.


83 posted on 12/03/2010 3:41:08 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Ron Paul might be naive and sometimes kooky, but an attention whore, he’s Not. I know we love our name calling on FR but at least have them make sense.


84 posted on 12/03/2010 4:05:10 PM PST by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lormand

I don’t know guys. If the Federal government can deny internet reporters the same free speech protections it gives to the NYT who printed classified war information, the internet will become a dangerous place mighty quick.

I can not stand this freak and I was mighty upset at the NYT for publishing military classified information. But I don’t want a double standard for internet reporters versus members of the DNC press.


85 posted on 12/03/2010 4:11:45 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke; gwilhelm56
Mr Assange could have been the type to sell this to Moscow (though I'm betting they already had it). But he did the one thing that is likely to get the problem solved. He published it where everybody could see it.

Absolutely right. Everyone espousing capturing Assange for Espionage forget this obvious truth, that he did not do it for another state. He is almost certainly a narcissistic d-bag but that is not a crime. He is Not a spy for a foreign power. This is new territory for all nations, since he might be the instrument of the leak (in case he coaxed Manning to orchestrate the leak) with the intent to be a whistleblower.
86 posted on 12/03/2010 4:16:53 PM PST by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kroll
Ron Paul might be naive and sometimes kooky, but an attention whore, he’s Not. I know we love our name calling on FR but at least have them make sense.

ROFL. That's why the Libertarian crank runs for the GOP nomination every 4 years, because he has such a good chance of winning, (huge /s) not because he's not an attention-whore, and that's just one sterling example. LOLOLOLOLOL.

87 posted on 12/03/2010 4:21:20 PM PST by onyx (If you truly support Sarah Palin and want on her busy ping list, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
New York Times Co. v. United States absolutely guarantees this.

Absolutely, but I believe he would still win (if charged) if he was contacted by Manning in the first place (owing to the status of wikileaks as a whistleblowing site) and merely chose to publish them (legal precedent or not). He certainly committed a crime if he orchestrated the leak somehow, but its still not Espionage.
88 posted on 12/03/2010 4:22:15 PM PST by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: kroll
"He certainly committed a crime if he orchestrated the leak somehow, but its still not Espionage. "

You very well may be right. BUT, I was listening to NPR last week when they interviewed Floyd Abrams. As you may be aware, Abrams is perhaps the preeminent authority on 1A issues - an unfailing champion of the First Amendment. He opines that Assange may be screwing himself here, and very well may have exposed himself to prosecution under The Espionage Act of 1917.

I'll try to find the audio. NPR keeps pretty good archives. If I can find it, I'll post it.

89 posted on 12/03/2010 4:32:24 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: kroll
Yep, I found it. It's only 4-minutes and worth a listen.

WikiLeaks: A Reminder Of The Pentagon Papers

90 posted on 12/03/2010 4:36:44 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: onyx
because he has such a good chance of winning, (huge /s)

Or maybe he does that bring to the attention of people, the issues he cares about. The primary/presidential debates are always a good time to do this. To think that he is not passionate about his issues (possibly misguided) would be plain disingenuous. Gov. Palin is for example, always in the news, partly due to the PDS of all the media haters but partly because, she chooses it and uses the media as a platform to get her message out. That does not make her a media-whore. I know he has many ludicrous ideas (especially about the role of Christianity in the Constitution) but he is pretty accurate on some fronts (like his anti-Fed crusade which is pretty useful). The world is not divided into Good and Evil - we are all shades of sinners, some more some less.
91 posted on 12/03/2010 4:40:23 PM PST by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: lormand

“kook”

I see you’re programmed correctly.


92 posted on 12/03/2010 4:42:10 PM PST by misanthrope (Liberals just plain suck!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Thanks for that, Floyd does make a case for Assange’s persecution. Interesting how the intent comes from Assange’s general vocal anti-American position rather than the actual actions. But it does make sense.


93 posted on 12/03/2010 4:50:59 PM PST by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: kroll
"Interesting how the intent comes from Assange’s general vocal anti-American position rather than the actual actions. But it does make sense."

Well, that's not to be unexpected. Intent is part of the Espionage Act. IOW, the prosecution would shoulder the burden of demonstrating malicious intent by the accused to prove the government's case. That's why Assange is digging a hole.

As any competent defense attorney will tell EVERY client who's under criminal investigation, STFU, and stay that way.

94 posted on 12/03/2010 4:56:23 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Its a legal grey area, to be sure. But why is he still breathing? We used to know how to handle business.


95 posted on 12/03/2010 5:39:29 PM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Alea Iacta Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

>As any competent defense attorney will tell EVERY client who’s under criminal investigation, STFU, and stay that way.

Agreed; but then again the government doesn’t actually play by the rules. {Or to put it more accurately the rules tend to be not only defined by the government but redefined by the government [at will]; we are seeing more and more of this, especially in regards to things like the DHS ‘domestic extremest’ list.}

Strictly speaking, ‘Treason’ could be applied to him; as defined in the Constitution no mention of nationality is made:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The argument that this cannot apply to the Wikileaks founder would have to be that he is not under the Law of the Constitution; this should be fairly easy as he is a foreign citizen living in a foreign country — further it would be bad form*, and possibly an act of war, to target [a foreign country’s citizen] and declare that he does fall under the Constitution and demand he be produced for prosecution under our Constitution.

*If such a argument were made, then it is possible that we could try all of Russia’s generals from the Cold war for treason; this makes little sense as they were adhering to their homeland and country of citizenship: Russia. Also such a stance could be mirrored by some foreign power and such charges leveled against American citizens.

The other alternatives are:
— Charging him with some internationally recognized law, or
— an extra-legal black-ops mission.

The latter option could be considered an act of war against his country-of-citizenship and/or the country-of-residence and so should be VERY CAREFULLY considered [and reconsidered] before committing to it. In addition to that, the moral question/impact should be considered; if America is to engage in off-record black-ops assassination [or kidnapping], especially those targeting a single private citizen, then does America-as-a-nation have any moral authority to condemn those countries who act likewise [though perhaps in a more open manner]?


96 posted on 12/03/2010 7:05:05 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: lormand

I believe it is good for truth to be exposed. I can’t see how hiding and deceiving will result in any good. If the means and ends are good there should be no need to hide and deceive (even when dealing with enemies or the ignorant).


97 posted on 12/03/2010 7:54:30 PM PST by survivalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Bravo Ron Paul, it takes great courage to take such a principled stand in this political climate.

“Let the people know the facts and the country will be safe.” Abraham Lincoln


98 posted on 12/03/2010 7:55:03 PM PST by WalterKurtz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; Delacon; ...
...arguing that the WikiLeaks founder should get the same protections as the media.
Thanks lormand.
99 posted on 12/04/2010 8:15:22 AM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: onyx
That's why the Libertarian crank runs for the GOP nomination every 4 years, because he has such a good chance of winning, (huge /s) not because he's not an attention-whore, and that's just one sterling example.

Rep Paul doesn't change his position every 4 years. It's the same one time and again. Standing on principle isn't something a good man does only if winning is certain.

An attention whore is somebody like Romney who is now for government run healthcare, and then not. Or McCain who would at one time build the damn fence, and then doesn't. These guys will bend almost any principle to get elected.

100 posted on 12/04/2010 9:15:52 AM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-102 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson