When founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange addressed the United Nations General Assembly on 26 September, he highlighted Barack Obama's fine words about freedom of expression and the right to dissent with the reality of US persecution of Bradley Manning and Wikileaks. He also contrasted Obama's rhetoric about human rights with the America's record in the Middle East region.
Quite correct, but a student union is a different beast to a labour union. She was a lawyer specialising in industrial law and contracted to the Aust. Workers Union.
Why are you disappointed with her? She answered the rapey one’s pompous question pretty well, I thought. She was very honest and open replying to it.
Because of her lack of character, so apparent when she casually told lies in that studio: 1.) Her sleazy equating of Assange with drug-traffickers and murderers; 2.) that preposterous claim that she admired Daniel Ellsberg, who blew the whistle on the people responsible for the destruction of Indo-China, but that she couldn’t see the point of publishing evidence of mass murder in Iraq thirty years later: “I simply don’t see the merit in it…I don’t see the moral purpose in it.”
She answered the rapey one’s pompous question pretty well, I thought. She was very honest and open replying to it.
Assange pinned her down as a traitor astutely, and the reaction of the crowd acknowledged that. She’s a smooth and polished dissembler, so she managed to mask her discomfort with a winsome little giggle—a strategy that no doubt moved her up the Labor Party hierarchy quickly.
———-
Of course I have to comment on your sad, vicious, preposterous Maoist-style abuse, calling Assange “the rapey one”. You really are a man out of your element; you would have been perfect in some hamlet in rural China, shouting denunciations and foul imprecations at whatever target had been identified by the party. False rape accusations played big in Maoist China, just like in Soviet Russia. Perhaps Marty and Doc will swing by in their flying DeLorean and whisk you off to some place where you can join in with another merry lynch mob.
Because you are a dedicated Labour Party man, it is inconceivable that you would deviate from party discipline and admit the unpalatable truth, but I know that you don’t actually believe the nonsense you feel duty-bound to regurgitate.
The problem with your critique is that it’s based on a false premise. You claim Gillard was lying. However, you only quote the first few words of her answer, which makes you the real distorter of the truth in this matter.
Further, Gillard does not equate the accused rapist Assange with murderers and drug traffickers, except in the sense that all Australian citizens get consular help whenever they are arrested overseas, whatever the gravity of the alleged crime. However, I’m happy to go further than Gillard. I believe rape, drug trafficking and murder are similarly serious crimes. So my opinion is that Assange is currently in that select group at least until he grows a spine and successfully defends the allegations.
Gillard was made to look good by comparison with Abbott and Rudd. She was a competent manager, an industrious bureaucrat bereft of any sort of vision. She was about as right wing as FJK, and like him, she misrepresented her agenda. You can see in the video how she immediately moved to associate Assange with murderers and drug traffickers. She did not answer his question about giving information to the seppos in a satisfactory manner at all.
For conservatives, Venezuela has become a one-word rejoinder to any and all liberal policy proposals. Want more government spending? A higher minimum wage? National health care? Venezuela did all that, and more, and it’s become an economic basket case—or so the theory goes. It’s a reductive argument—Venezuela’s national wealth is also tied to the price of oil, which has collapsed in recent years—but it’s a seductive analogy, especially for the president. “The new Democrats are radical socialists who want to model America’s economy after Venezuela,” Donald Trumpwrote in an op-ed last year. He went on to accuse Andrew Gillum of seeking to turn Florida into “the next Venezuela,” and swore that Beto O’Rourke would “never be allowed to turn Texas into Venezuela” either. More recently, the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr.,trolled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a meme suggesting that Americans would starve under Venezuela-style socialism, forcing them to eat dogs for sustenance.
The punch line has become more serious in recent days, as Venezuela’s political system has begun to buckle with a little help from the Trump administration. Last week, the United States officially recognized socialist-lite opposition leader Juan Guaidóas the legitimate president of Venezuela, and called for current president, Nicolás Maduro, to step down. It’s not officially a coup—at least not yet. “This is not a U.S.-sponsored anything,” Sen.Marco Rubio, one of Maduro’s harshest critics in the States, said last weekend. “This is the U.S. supporting the people of Venezuela, who want their constitution and democracy followed.” But it is the sort of Truman Doctrine flexing that led the U.S. to topple several South American regimes in the past.
Trump’s personal fixation on Venezuela is notable, given that he professes to be such an ardent anti-interventionist. For years, he has been among the most vocal voices of dissent in the G.O.P. calling for troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria. But there’s something about Hispanic, socialist Venezuela—the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of countries—that makes Trump lust for a “military option.”
On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a notorious neoconservative hawk, told Axios’s Jonathan Swan that Trump asked him during the height of the government shutdown if the U.S. should simply invade Venezuela.
Graham, recalling his conversation with Trump, said: “He [Trump] said, ‘What do you think about using military force?’ and I said, ‘Well, you need to go slow on that, that could be problematic.’ And he said, ‘Well, I’m surprised—you want to invade everybody.’”
Graham laughed. “And I said, ‘I don’t want to invade everybody; I only want to use the military when our national-security interests are threatened.’”
”Trump’s really hawkish” on Venezuela, the hawkish Graham added in a phone interview on Sunday afternoon, adding that Trump was even more hawkish than he was on Venezuela.
It’s not the first time Trump has mused aloud about a military intervention, often unbidden, to topple Maduro. Over the past two years, a revolving door of moderate Trump advisers—Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, Gary Cohn—have reportedly talked Trump down from invading Venezuela, though he has continued to push the idea. According to the Associated Press, Trump has raised the issue in private conversations with Latin American leaders, despite being advised not to ask. Those leaders reportedly balked, but the idea has slowly gained traction among Venezuela’s opposition as the situation there has deteriorated. At the same time, political conditions inside the White House began to change. Tillerson, Mattis, McMaster, and Cohn are all gone, replaced by hawks like National Security Adviser John Bolton,who recently named Venezuela as one-third of a “troika of tyranny,” and notorious neoconElliott Abrams. On Fox News, the specter of socialist Venezuela has dominated headlines. The feedback loop between Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham,and Trump has whipped all parties into a frenzy. The prospect ofteaming up with right-wing Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro—the “Trump of the Tropics”—to help make an example of the far left is even sweeter.
Would Trump invade Venezuela to “own the libs”? It’s hard to imagine another bout of military adventurism would be well received by most, but Trump—whose acting chief of staff says a military option is not “off the table”—may be tempted as Democrats curtail his power at home. As Trump faces a newly empowered Democratic party—strong-arming him in Congress over the government shutdown, launching investigations into his businesses, and, most important, gearing up to run against him in 2020—regime change in Venezuela would scratch his itch to exercise unilateral executive power and provide a potent (if bloody) talking point. “It is far more important to shut down the Maduro government than our government, and I think Donald Trump is leading there—and he is winning there,” conservative radio hostHugh Hewittsaid Sunday on Meet the Press, encouraging the president to wag the dog. “That’s gonna happen. That’s gonna bring us together.”
After I tweeted about the late actor Anthony Sagar at 23.24 last night @wikipedia editor Andrew P. Cross went to Sagar’s wikipedia page at 3.15am to remove (among other minor edits) the word ‘popular’ before #DadsArmy, a series he knows I love. He follows my tweets VERY closely.
Well now, look!
As I've mentioned before: no doubt @OliverKamm is happy about Philip Cross's sicko games with his Twitter account, because Cross is a crawler who sucks up to him.
I will document similar weirdo bullshit from Cross concerning my account . Tread softly, Mr Cross.
And I tweeted about Elliot Abrams @Wikipedia article this morning and low & behold......
Andrew is just a sad, lonely, isolated little man with nothing better to do with his life - he's just trolling now - don't give him the oxygen.
#PhilipCross
Emma added,
Emma@emmadefano1
That one time @Wikipedia was spot on #ElliottAbrams "is a spawn of Satan, war criminal, right wing ghoul and genocidal maniac".
Someone promote that Editor.
…
He's a vicious, nasty, sick little troll who has spent a good part of his pointless life misusing what pathetic corner of power he has carved out for himself against people who are worth a thousand of him and more. I had some sympathy for him at one time, and used it. No more.
I had a brief flirt with sympathy when I found out about Andrew's personal circumstances. But his continuing misguided sense of invulnerability & total lack of self awareness put paid to that. He lost the Wiki battle anyway - that must cut.
I have actually done a great deal for Philip Cross in a quiet way, most notably doing my best to quash an extremely ugly and false rumour about him that, in my judgement, might even have threatened his personal safety. In return, he spies on me from behind a block. Gutless wimp.
Wikipedia is not simply rife with manipulation and forgery, it is supported by some downright unscrupulous benefactors. The Wikimedia Foundation, of which Wikipedia is a project, has been directly dependent upon support from George Soros.
Indeed, anyone who thinks Wikipedia's founders bothered to set it up so people could get info on sitcoms and popular culture is childishly naive. Its potential to ensure primacy of establishment narratives in search results is obvious
The War On You added,
Paul Anthony Taylor@paulanthtaylor
Wikipedia is not simply rife with manipulation and forgery, it is supported by some downright unscrupulous benefactors. The Wikimedia Foundation, of which Wikipedia is a project, has been directly dependent upon support from George Soros. https://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/2018/10/wikipedia-the-george-soros-connection/…
Both Cross and Kamm are creepy. I feel for you Neil. You shouldn't have to put up with people like that trying to intimidate and scare you. It's a shame the police can't do more.
I’ve visions of Ged, in that Alan Partridge episode, Alan’s ‘No1 fan’. Sounds like a right weirdo Neil.
Great series Dad’s Army btw. Watched that episode last night!
If said Andrew P. Cross were a book character I would frown at him being so cartoonish. A parody of a creature,why would any author bother to paint than trivial self-caricature of a man at all? But that's reality.... Dear Reality,is not you ashamed?
Morrissey5.1.1
Te Reo Putake5.1.1.1
millsy…
Murray Rawshark5.2
Andrew is just a sad, lonely, isolated little man with nothing better to do with his life - he's just trolling now - don't give him the oxygen.
#PhilipCross
He lost the Wiki battle anyway - that must cut.
on February 12, 2019, 1:56 am
Someone promote that Editor.
…
...
