Julian Assange: "I`m a big admirer of Ron Paul"

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Well, I don't personally have much problem with what Assange did either, for what it matters to anything...with the exception I've noted before about how he basically sacrificed everything Wikileaks was beyond being an Anti-US/Anti-War machine. Another topic on that though...

The thing is.. You could think he's Robin Hood and I may think he's Jesus Christ and can just walk across the Atlantic to get to Ecuador. What we think makes absolutely zero difference to anything. He's connecting Rand Paul and his family, openly and publicly to himself. A man other members of Congress and high officials of the U.S. Government have implied is a high criminal ...tried to convict his source as a traitor and are sending that kid to prison for.

To the people in power? Assange is an open sore, festering on steroids and needs captured by damn near any means necessary, short of an act of open war ...which is what kicking down the Embassy door would be.

Hence..... What in the world is he thinking, hanging THAT prize around the neck of a serving United States Senator with multiple security clearances??

You kinda seeing what I'm saying here? In the Official world that Assange knows very well by reading the dirty laundry of? All he did was make a hell of a lot of problems for Rand Paul, IMO. A lot of questions real quietly asked about what KIND and how MUCH support, precisely would the Paul family be giving to a fugitive some of Paul's colleagues would willingly kill to get?

People keep treating this like a game and I REALLY don't get that at all. The opposition here KILLS PEOPLE for a LIVING and are some of the most prolific in history at doing it in the ways they do.

yeah, I'd have to disagree

He's connecting Rand Paul and his family, openly and publicly to himself.

Not really..

a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the US Congress on a number of issues.”

to me its just him agreeing with their points of view.

Likewise, if he said he admired Einstein and Oppenheimer for their position on nuclear warfare he isn't connecting himself to anyone he's merely being and admirer of their work.

I do see where your coming from.. example, Romney didn't really want to use Bush as a public backer because Bush was universally hated.

Difference here is Assange isn't universally hated, I'd say he's admired more than he's hated, at-least in the public domain. He might be universally hated in political halls of Washington DC and for good cause, but in the end this probably helps Paul, as the people hate the halls of DC at the moment too!

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Yeah... We keyed on two VERY different lines in what he was quoted as saying.

The Paul family, added Assange, have been “the strongest supporters of the fight against the US attack on WikiLeaks and on me.”

That wasn't general or just a wide open "He's a swell fella" reference. That was personal, direct and almost a outright thank you.

All the better if no one else read it that way...but then. you'd be assuming that about people who are literally paranoid by profession and downright cynical for a living. You know, the same guys who see a screaming Jihadi behind every trash can and bush in major American cities?

Maybe..just this once..they weren't the least bit paranoid and assumed Assange misspoke.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


yeah, true...


I suppose it does put the spotlight of Paul more as a 'supporter of assange'

How can you not admire Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is a god.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Who cares what he thinks, he is not a US citizen.

A fugitive from justice is not who any sane politician wants stumping for them anyways.

Says the guy condemning "Sheeple" with his avatar

Oh, the irony.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
Geeze.. what did Rand Paul do to piss off Assange?? I'm not even kidding.

You're reading way too much into this. Assange is just another disillusioned liberal who has finally woken up to the fact that the current liberal administration is anything but "liberal" in the true sense of the word. The word "liberal" actually means "free". He correctly states that the only political minority representing freedom in the original sense of the word, are Libertarians.

Originally posted by thoughtfuldeliquent
I'm curious, how does Hillary Clinton have support?

Its wishful thinking.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

yeah, true...

I suppose it does put the spotlight of Paul more as a 'supporter of assange'

There are supporters of truth and freedom on the right (Paul) and on the left (Assange). And then there are those who are afraid of the truth, which are still the majority in politics these days. Give it a few hundred more years and that will change.

Originally posted by CatherineWheel

Ron Paul is a god.

One of the defining characteristics of a Libertarian mindset is that they don't worship politicians.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Ron [and Rand Paul] seem like traditional conservatives that are against the globalist agenda, not really libertarians.

Did you really just say that? Ron Paul is the godfather of the modern libertarian movement, how the hell is he not really a libertarian? He believes in MINIMALIST government, only enough to protect life, liberty, and property...he believes in abolishing most of government entities outside of the few main constitutional functions. He believes in states rights, he believes in personal and economic freedom. Rand labels himself a libertarian conservative, small l big C...that much we already know although I personally believe he is closer to his father than he leads everybody to believe. The only reason why he is so popular today is because he has worded the message in such a way that mainstream conservatives can accept it without getting defensive.

It reminds me of gary johnson talking about legalising "soft drugs" and people just staring at him in disbelief. Libertarians tend to be socially liberal and financially conservative. Traditional conservatives dont want to hear anything liberal at all.

Ron Paul is for a relatively small government but I dont view him as libertarian as such. I dont think he is socially liberal like gary johnson. BTW gary johnson was the republican governor of new mexico and then decided to run with the libertarian party and got .99% of the total vote.

We are arguing semantics but at this point its important imo.

Originally posted by TheAnarchist

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Who cares what he thinks, he is not a US citizen.

A fugitive from justice is not who any sane politician wants stumping for them anyways.

Says the guy condemning "Sheeple" with his avatar

Oh, the irony.

Do you deny there are "sheeple" in the world?

Originally posted by CatherineWheel
How can you not admire Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is a god.

Assange and people like him depend on the absolute fact that there are sheeple in the world to gather around his cause like a human meat shield. Invoking a name like Ron Paul is a no brainer for him to thicken his wall of human flesh that will mindlessly follow.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Errrr... I'd hope I am... It just hit me a bit odd then I realized the stakes and real life actions happening globally on the case Assange so casually tossed around as conversation. (As noted, it would take an act of open war to touch a hair on him..and everyone knows it. So he can say anything he likes now.)

If the guys who are over-paranoid and downright creepy with it didn't read a thing into it? I guess it will have slid by...

You know what makes me wonder? Why did Assange even say it? He rarely ever says anything anymore due to the very dangerous position he's in. As far as I know, he's still going to pretty much disappear into some nation's system (starting with Britain and we know where he'll end up) if he crosses the imaginary line between Ecuador and England. Oh well.... I guess he has his reasons for giving shout outs to people and basically thanking them for personal support ....from the position of one of the most wanted fugitives in US History.

*and for the record.. I happen to LIKE what Assange did in general. Manning? Whole different matter...but Assange took no Oath to violate and he didn't serve next to the men he violated, as he was doing it. Assange was as much a citizen journalist here as thousands of others without 'official' press cards. A true 'shoot the messenger' situation ...although our side is sitting here with artillery pieces to shoot him and anyone connected to him on the first hint of opportunity.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Assange didnt really reveal anything earth shattering like a few others have. Even snowdens revelations are pretty moderate. Yet everyone has been making a big deal about manning, assange, snowden etc when we we have had revelations of underground bases with aliens plotting to take over the world with all kinds of nefarious plots.

Whats the problem with revealing corruption? Oaths taken that violate the constitution or are very unethical/immoral SHOULD be violated, unless people like you enjoy hypocrisy saying lets get rid of the corruption on one hand and then blame them for breaking oaths or most often confidentiality agreements with private companies.

BTW there are so many private companies involved with national security the last few decades as government keeps getting more and more privatised it IS HARD to know what should be classified and what should be public material.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000


*and for the record.. I happen to LIKE what Assange did in general. Manning? Whole different matter...but Assange took no Oath to violate and he didn't serve next to the men he violated, as he was doing it. Assange was as much a citizen journalist here as thousands of others without 'official' press cards. .

Good point. An endorsement from Manning would be embarrassing. And endorsement from a renegade journalist not so much.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Assange didnt really reveal anything earth shattering like a few others have. Even snowdens revelations are pretty moderate. Yet everyone has been making a big deal about manning, assange, snowden etc when we we have had revelations of underground bases with aliens plotting to take over the world with all kinds of nefarious plots.

The difference between these kinds of revelatios is that for Wikileaks kind of stuff there is evidence whereas for underground UFO bases there is none. That makes them more tangible and dangerous...which is why Assange and Snowden and Manning are in trouble whereas UFO-Author "Commander X" for instance, is not in trouble.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Yes from the perspective of the status quo what you say is correct. Something that is easier to believe will have more followers jumping on the truth bandwagon. Something that is difficult to prove and is WAY OUT THERE will have less followers.

However the more explosive the information, the greater potential to destroy the new world order for good.

Commander X is as explosive as it gets according to some stuff I have read. Phil Schneider, Bob Lazar, John Lear, Thomas Castello, David Icke is also wwwaaay out there, but a little less so.

We have been collectively kept in the dark for the entire period. The deeper you dig, the more questions you have rather than answers. Weird how that works, aint it?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Whats the problem with revealing corruption? Oaths taken that violate the constitution or are very unethical/immoral SHOULD be violated, unless people like you enjoy hypocrisy saying lets get rid of the corruption on one hand and then blame them for breaking oaths or most often confidentiality agreements with private companies.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with revealing corruption. That worked great. Now when Snowden shared enough with Russia to see their people in Moscow literally go to typewriters in some of their security service offices and China, start changing hardware switches and routers throughout their network? That isn't corruption. Frankly, it's espionage and treason. They don't have to be declared enemies for that to apply.

If only...he'd kept to releasing what the US was doing IN the US and TO Americans. Now THAT was illegal. THAT had laws the world recognizes to prohibit it. The rest he's blown? He's blown ONE side's capability while actually HELPING the other side defend and build more against it. That does direct harm to the United States.

Assange? heck..again, he was little more than a citizen journalist. My only real beef with him was throwing SO much down the crapper to become a crusader that really? Has accomplished almost nothing by it in the end. What changed in any positive way from any of this leaked? Not one stinking thing I've seen yet. Plenty of "show" to "hope" something changes...but not one concrete "THERE IT IS!" change to point to. So much lost for so little gain.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


But you are disregarding the fact that american media has to follow lots of national security protocols after the attack of 9-11-2001 and the formation of DHS! I think he would of gladely stayed in the USA and given disclosure via the american media given a reasonable chance to do so. He never had that chance, so it went to hong kong out of necessity.

You are not taking everything into consideration when judging snowden, but many like you do the same thing and frankly it baffles me. Perhaps you have too much trust in the american system and do not see how corrupt it has become after 9-11 OR you fear russia and china too much. China and Russia really didnt need snowdens help but given the opportunity they will probably take advantage.

I think what snowden did was necessary and the pros outweigh the cons significantly. Still snowdens disclosure was not as earth shattering as most make it out to be. I KNEW about project echelon for about a decade since I have a degree in computer science and kept up on networking and computers. For most people this is something new with concrete evidence to back it all up. This paves the road for cleansing of government and the election of third parties if the big ones dont get their act straight.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Do me a favor and please link or cite these protocols they have to follow? What restrictions are the media under by order of the executive or legislative branches?

To say they are pressured is one thing. To suggest they have formal protocols to follow moves it from encroachment of Government by undue pressure on a free press to outright, black and white 1st amendment violation that is so court actionable, the ACLU must have a half dozen cases in the pipeline as we speak.

I've just not seen these formal protocols the free press is required to adhere to? Justice did show them there were unwritten ones....but even that wasn't discovered until recent months. Bush knew better than to directly go to war with the media. For all the slamming, hate and general Bush bashing like it's baseball or something...he wasn't a total idiot as some are today. Today, Holder and others are at open war with the 4th Estate ..yet still.. formal protocols outside the basic federal law EVERY citizen is held to on dissemination of classified material?

* if anyone doubts that 'EVERY" citizen part and figures those laws we've always had are just media? Go deep web digging some day and come back up here with a classified bone to be the first to share openly ... See if it takes 1 day or 2 for the knock-knock to come and it ain't a joke being delivered.