It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Julian Assange to run for Senate

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
He cant really be any worse than our current leaders, if we went to an election tomorrow whoever can prove they can count to 5 could be PM. I think he would be like Australia's Nick Xenophon he'd actually try to do something for the people and actually make it happen, Xenophon actually works for and with the people as opposed to all the other jokers in seats who do nothing to help the general public. He'd probably be a strong lobbyer for things that actually benefit the people, like i said he actually has a brain and would probably put it to good use. He cant be any worse than half the muppets currently holding seats but i'm sure those in power would be scared at him getting a run at a seat because he'd hold them ransom to get his vote and if they screwed him or the people over in some way some information would somehow leak out from some unknown source
.




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PulsusMeusGallo
When Assange was young, he was arrested for hacking and it was at that point he may have thrown his lot in with the power elite. Fast forward to the 2000s. He doesn't create WikiLeaks, he buys it...


Source this? Please?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by glen200376
i think it's his reward for being a shill.fed everyone useless,possibly bogus "leaks".oh here you go dumb public,your peoples champion,cough,cough.as for the "i'd vote for him" crowd-wow,i guess you are the 90 percent of the population who watch x factor,use facebook etc.


You are including me in that because I would vote for him due to the useless incompetents we are stuck with at the moment. I also use facebook to keep in touch with family and friends throughout the world, though my information available on it is very limited.

Thank you for you uninformed, unhelpful comment.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PulsusMeusGallo
When Assange was young, he was arrested for hacking and it was at that point he may have thrown his lot in with the power elite. Fast forward to the 2000s. He doesn't create WikiLeaks, he buys it. And there are plenty of questions about his background, where he gets his money and what his ultimate goals are.

It is quite likely that he's backed by the elites - the same group that lobs fear-based promotions at the world and then proposes solutions like "transparency." If government doesn't work, it shall have to be made to work. Its corruption is to be exposed; its dysfunction erased. The "people" are to rise up and demand this. Assange for Senator!

Sometimes my preoccupations are rewarded by special events such as the constantly growing presence of Julian Assange. Elite memes are usually bigger than individual people, but this is guy is a walking, talking meme by his lonesome. I’ve never seen anything like it. You know, the elite doesn’t have anything new in their playbook – and this guy is straight out of central casting.

He doesn’t want do away with government or even make it smaller. He just wants to make it better! What a hypocrite.

He’s been groomed.

Being generally suspicious of Assange and WikiLeaks exhibiting is a kind of Anglosphere power elite "limited hangout," I don't see any reason to change my assessment now.



Eh?

You can't just make stuff up and then post it as 'proof' of your paranoid delusion.

You have to use actual facts to support your case.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by kwakakev
 


The US has not nor has ever tried to extradite Assange. Aside from the rumors of a sealed indictment, there is nothing that shows charges will be brought against him (much to my irritation).

You're correct but that doesn't mean too much, I'm thinking. They simply won't "try". They'll DO only when the ducks are lined up and all the paperwork is set to roll at warp speed. If they aren't 100% sure of success...? Well, we remain sitting here and speculating.

As far as I know..he would have diplomatic immunity if the Australian Government chose to issue him the right passport and Government status for cover under it, wouldn't he? This might be the one time we DO NOT honor that treaty and push the exception to the max we possible can (with Assange in a U.S. cell all the while)... It would be an interesting thing to see.

Knowing Assange, if he won and got the pretty passport with the right cover, he'd be cheeky enough to show up at the Pentagon, State Dept or CIA for the public tour.

edit on 17-3-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by kwakakev
 


The US has not nor has ever tried to extradite Assange. Aside from the rumors of a sealed indictment, there is nothing that shows charges will be brought against him (much to my irritation).


Mike Huckabee however, did call for Assange's assassination.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by missvicky
 




Is Australia really still subject to the British throne? I thought you guys were soveriegn?


Australia is still part of the Commonwealth that Britain has helped establish over centuries of colonisation throughout the world. The English Monarchy is still our ultimate head of state, generally they have little to do with the day to day running of government, but can step in as a final adjudicator on some decisions. Their main area of influence is in keeping government functional.

We did have a referendum about 10-20 years ago to see if Australia was to become a republic, but the Queen was too popular. There was also debate about what structure was going to replace it with no clear favourite.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
But hang-on! Wikileaks is a Mossad front!
Assange is complicit. His 'stance' on 9/11 tells you all you need to know!

This is all scripted! More manipulative BS!

The "Wikileaks" farcical comedy


So what happened with the Arab Spring? Is the Muslim brotherhood in Mossads back pocket or was it blow back? There is a lot behind it, but wikileaks did add some fuel and influence to the fire.

He also backed out of the UFO stuff. Generally it was just the restricted and classified stuff that got released, the top secret was left out. The stakes do rise when it comes to that game...



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
So what happened with the Arab Spring?


Sweet FA, as Axel Rose would put it. The guy who's running the place now, is not only the leader of the army, but is also the man who Mubarak had already named as his successor. Once the army got sick of it, they also just beat the crap out of the protestors themselves, and then cleared the square.

The Egyptian revolution accomplished approximately zilch.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Also, Assange's stance on 9/11 doesn't tell me that he's a Mossad stool pigeon. All it really tells me is that he doesn't know quite as much as he thinks he does.

This guy's Achilles' Heel is that he is as arrogant as all Hell. He thinks he's God; or at least Neo. Keep that in mind, when you read anything he says.
edit on 18-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 




Assange's stance on 9/11 doesn't tell me that he's a Mossad stool pigeon. All it really tells me is that he doesn't know quite as much as he thinks he does.


Assange's stance on 9/11 tells me that he knows his place. Millions are already dead and displaced over this, there is already plenty of evidence around to investigate the prime suspects. Having all the emails of exactly who said what would help clear up the actual chain of command, but without the political will and preparedness to address this it would have gotten quite intense.

I don't know if 9/11 will slip away like JFK, but it is affecting the world, which is still gradually waking up to it as the investigations are coming in and getting reviewed.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Qumulys
 


How disappointing was he !??

Can't help but think Assange is carrying too much baggage ... too big a target for mudslinging.

I can hear it now; " Mr speaker, how can we trust someone who can sell out an entire government, and its' Peoples, based on their own assumptions and questionable sources, Mr speaker ?"

Besides which, your point about Peter Garret is exactly the way it would be with Assange ... " Tow the party line, BOY ! You're one of US now .

And we all know how hard it is to remove a Pigs' snout from the trough once it's had a sniff . ( bit harsh ?)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
Secrecy isn't fundamentally a good thing, Xcathdra. I came to realise that my initial assessment of you was wrong, and I now believe that you have positive intentions, but we have to disagree on this. I'm also aware that your response is probably going to be to cite saving people's lives in wartime situations, etc; but that is the justification which psychopaths use to keep a lot of things secret that don't need to be. In those cases the real reason for the secrecy is to protect themselves from accountability to the public.


I am all for accountability, both in a persons personal actions as well as in actions that are on behalf of the people our elected officials represent. I agree that there is way to much that is classified with absolutely no apparent reason other than someone with that authority just wants to exercise it.

My viewpoint on this is based on how the US classification system works (and from an alliance standpoint how Australia handles the info). If a report is created using information from the FBI, DEA and CIA, that information can be used to go back and find the source documents from those 3 agencies. Its not out of the realm of possibility that the source info for the FBI and DEA reports contain no information that would jeopardize a source / investigation / operation etc. However the source info from the CIA could very well contain that information. Only classifying the CIA portion will not guarantee protection, so all 3 sources become classified. Since a top secret level designation granted to a person who works for the FBI does not equivelate to the same access for the DEA or CIA reports, it becomes a mess.

The easy road is to classify all 3 reports.. and yes, the easy way is not always the right way.

Granted we are talking about a position in the Australian Senate and not US agencies, however the principle is still the same.



Originally posted by petrus4
I consider Julian Assange a brother anarchist, and value the sacrifices that he has made. I am aware of, and somewhat repelled by, his degree of arrogance, yes, but he is a grey hat hacker; and in their case, a God complex generally goes with the territory.


His arrogance is what truly makes me nervous. All it is going to take is that arrogance (and this can be applied to anyone who has access to information) without giving proper deference to the fallout down the road for releasing info can create a situation much more worse than it should be.

Dont get me wrong I think my Government abuses the classification system. I also believe though that sometimes there will be a situation where information needs to be protected and kept out of the eyes of the public.

I completely agree with Judge Marrero who said, "democracy abhors undue secrecy." Not only does that serve as a warning for the abuse of the system to protect information, it also serves as a reminder that sometimes its needed (hence the word undue being used).

I support whistle blowers to the extent of exposing corruption / criminal actions. Its a way to keep our Government in check. I do not support a person who releases hundreds of thousands of other documents showing no criminal wrong doing.

Coming back to Assange I feel he exercised extremely poor judgment with the release of info. To me it served absolutely no purpose other than Assange being able to personally stick it to the US. When the release of information is based solely on a personal, for lack of a better word, vendetta its a problem. It tells me the person releasing the info does not care about people who may be adversely affected by that release.

As a member of the Senate Assange could redeem himself since he would be in a position where he could request government investigations and be taken seriously in that request. Running for the Senate with the intent of releasing info like wikileaks would be a smack in the face to the people who voted for him. He would be a representative of the people and as such will have to get over his "constituency of one - himself" mindset.

As far as you and I not seeing eye to eye on issues - no worries. I dont think I would want to live in a world where there was no dissent / minority position. I prefer uncertainty to the stale clam of utopia. Not agreeing with a viewpoint is how we advance as a species.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by missvicky
 




Is Australia really still subject to the British throne? I thought you guys were soveriegn?


Australia is still part of the Commonwealth that Britain has helped establish over centuries of colonisation throughout the world. The English Monarchy is still our ultimate head of state, generally they have little to do with the day to day running of government, but can step in as a final adjudicator on some decisions. Their main area of influence is in keeping government functional.


I think the "final adjudicator" powers got removed after the Whitlam debacle.

The Queen is required to accept the instruction of her ministers when it comes to performing any of her constitutional powers. The "Royal prerogative" is actually required to be only used at such direction - it is not really a prerogative at all.

Other than that her (or the governor General as her rep) only get to pick a parliamentary leader to try to form a Govt & they can choose whoever they like....but of course then that person has to actually demonstrate having "the confidence of the house" in Parliament & if they can't do that then having the Q/GG's support means squat.

Yanks like to think that the Q has all these powers, that Aus isn't really sovereign because the Queen lives in London, etc., because they don't bother to look behind the headlines.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Wow, thank you so much for that incredibly ill-informed statement of half truths.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


Perhaps you would like to supply the other half of them then?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Not particularly.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


What are you hiding?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Garfee
 


What are you hiding?


My profile photo is of me and my location is clearly displayed. I am hiding very little, especially for a site such as this. If you wish to send me a personal message you are welcome to but surely you can stay on topic. If you want to clarify your previous statements about australian politics to correct yourself, nobody will stop you but it's not my job to and I also am not inclined to.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


If you make a claim that someone is posting ill informed half truths in a forum and then fail to say what those half truths are in that same forum I think it is fair to conclude you are trolling.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join