Recommended Posts

(edited)

Wow great post.

Can't wait to see how this is spun.

Er, I mean, the explanation ...  

Oh wait, that article was all BS. Now I remember. That'll be the answer. Duh

 

@Otis11 , you can answer Marcin's border thread then haha

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Whistle-blowers are protected. If you're referring to the current anti-Trump whistle-blower, it's not a whistle-blower, it's a coordinated smear campaign. (I was initially very skeptical too, as I am generally not a fan of conspiracy theories as people charge - however this is hardly a conspiracy theory. Way too much evidence)

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Relating to your other comments:

  • Assange - I believe he absolutely had a right to disseminate the information he gathered and to criticize the government. The question here is when this transitions from free speech to espionage (which is what he was charged with), among other supposed mis-deeds. If his actions did transition to espionage, or had a conspiracy to commit computer intrusion (also charged), committed the sexual assault in Sweden, or any number of other things he has been accused of, then let him stand before a court of law and be charged. If all he's guilty of is very thorough journalism and publishing information OTHERS illegally divulged, well, he's free to go.
  • Manning - releasing classified materials to the press is a violation of the oath sworn before being accepted into the service is not freedom of speech. It's "wantonly [caused] to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the US government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy" at best, treason at worst.
  • Snowden - There's a lot of nuance here. Technically he did breach his NDA, but as far as I can tell, he made significant attempts to proceed the right way and only took secondary (and technically illegal) action after the correct routes failed and - very importantly - proceeded to release the information in a deliberate way in which he believed it maximized the public benefit while minimizing unnecessary damage. I am not an expert on this, so could be mistaken and would be willing to hear evidence to the contrary, but I think he should be exonerated. Did he break the law? Yes, so technically a criminal, but he - to my current knowledge - actually fits the description of whistle-blower. (Though, I should add, this is not a free-speech issue, he signed an NDA and took an oath when he got his clearance)
  • Ellsberg - if You're talking about Daniel Ellsberg - dismissed all charges against Ellsberg on May 11, 1973. We're good to go. (Though, again I should add this is not a free speech issue. He took an oath when he got his clearance and then broke it. He was charged for that, not for free speech.)

Israel - You can very much criticize them here. They regularly are... but most people are oblivious to the whole picture going on here. Is Israel innocent? No, they've done some things that the leaders/decision makers should be held accountable for. But they're in a very tough spot and have - in instances - shown great restraint. I'm not well versed on the intricacies here so am not going to get into a protracted debate, however, here in the US I am also free to condemn actions by Israel or any other nation. Free speech exists.

What do you think that bill says? It says Racial and Religious discrimination (already illegal) specifically in the form attacking the Jews is illegal. That's not limiting your free speech at all - you can still say whatever you want against anyone for their actions, you just can't discriminate.


(Discriminate: make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.)

It is an inalienable right, however in order to get access to certain information, you may agree to not divulge certain information. No one is forcing anyone to make this oath/agreement - they can walk away - they just won't get the information if they don't. This is not limited to countries - many companies do this too, all over the world.

Freedom of speech is not subject to national security. (And before you go citing the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 - only false statements were actionable, knowledge of a statement’s falsity and an intent to defame were elements of the offense, and the defendant was expressly permitted to introduce evidence of the statement’s truth. So if it's True, you're good. If you thought it was True, you're good. If you had no malice, again - you're good. They have to prove you intentionally spread a known un-truth for the purpose of damaging someone. I fail to see why that should be protected?)

Am I a bigot too? I'm having trouble telling anymore what facts make someone a bigot and what opinions espouse virtue. 

Thank you for detailed response. Respected.

The salient disagreements are: 1/ Free Speech should be an absolute, unlimited right, and not a qualified right as the Florida act has so made it: 2/ the rights of citizens to expose and disclose criminal activities should not be made subordinate to any "agreements" they may be required to sign by their government in the name of national security. 

Looks like we should agree to disagree.  I would suggest you study the Nurnberg trials, to see the dangers when national security supersedes the rights and obligations of citizens to report criminal activities of their government. 

You and other Americans are free to accept the points you made. I do not, on moral and legal grounds. But under no circumstances should Americans demonise other countries for upholding the same standards you abide. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, frankfurter said:

Thank you for detailed response. Respected.

The salient disagreements are: 1/ Free Speech should be an absolute, unlimited right, and not a qualified right as the Florida act has so made it: 2/ the rights of citizens to expose and disclose criminal activities should not be made subordinate to any "agreements" they may be required to sign by their government in the name of national security. 

Looks like we should agree to disagree.  I would suggest you study the Nurnberg trials, to see the dangers when national security supersedes the rights and obligations of citizens to report criminal activities of their government. 

You and other Americans are free to accept the points you made. I do not, on moral and legal grounds. But under no circumstances should Americans demonise other countries for upholding the same standards you abide. 

 

 

 

Can you please elaborate on how the Florida act quantifies free speech? Because I missed that part in my (admittedly quick) review of the provided link. It seemed like it was just clarifying that discrimination (which is not necessarily speech) does apply to Jews. (It already did under both the religion and the race/ethnicity applications). So I miss how this changes anything in practice?

(Discriminate: make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.)

As the case with Snowden and Ellsberg (the later of which has been shown by the courts) - violating a legal agreement to expose illegal activity is already protected. Manning clearly did not follow the correct processes (Neither did Snowden, but he went the correct processes first - then took care to cause minimal damage when violating the process). Assange there is not enough information on (or at least I am not aware of it) to make a determination at this point.

So can you clarify what we disagree on? Because I don't see where we disagree on any principle, just on our conclusion.

(I'm familiar with some of the Nurnberg trials, but that was a long time ago - would have to brush up to discuss in any detail.)

That last part is where I find my disagreement - What points of mine do you disagree with on Moral or Legal grounds? And I like to think of myself as an equal-opportunity demonize. I'll call out governments everywhere (including my own) when they do something harmful to the future of their citizens or humanity. (Start an article on the sins of the West - there are plenty of valid ones - I'll attack them too. But let's keep events current - no point debating mistakes from the 60's, just like I don't cite things from 50+ years ago about China. But I'll also defend actions from around the world if they were justified, or the 'least worse' decision possible given the information and capabilities they had at the time. No fair criticizing decisions with perfect data in hindsight.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/futures-yuan-slide-china-threatens-retaliation-over-us-house-bill-hong-kong

''America has an opinion on Hong Kong??''  - Winnie will not be happy. 

I want to stress once again that Hong Kong is China's Hong Kong. Hong Kong affairs are purely China's internal affairs and cannot be interfered by any outside forces. We advised the US side to recognize the situation and immediately stop promoting the review of the relevant Hong Kong bill and immediately stop interfering with Hong Kong affairs and interfering in China's internal affairs.

#ONECOUNTRYTWOSYSTEMS  

Image result for winnie the pooh

Edited by DayTrader
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-australia-china/senior-australian-minister-says-china-is-behaving-badly-draws-rebuke-idUKKBN1WQ0MS

Who are these people having opinions??? This must be stopped!! 

“But we are not going to allow university students to be unduly influenced, we are not going to allow theft of intellectual property, and we are not going to allow our government bodies or non-government bodies to be hacked into,” he said.    So they do this everywhere? Zzz

China’s embassy in Canberra called the remarks “irrational ... shocking and baseless” in a statement on its website, adding that they constituted “an outright provocation to the Chinese people”.

Yeah, I'm sure the average citizen was really bothered. The droids maybe ... 

Edited by DayTrader
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing lots of footage of HK live containing American flags.

Just sayin'

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2019 at 10:45 AM, John Foote said:

Trump is the current personification perhaps, but not the movement. It started before him, and if he doesn't destroy it, will continue on without him.  

The movement is much more valid than the man. In that respect, not any different than almost any worthwhile organization or movement. When a personality is the focus, things will go sideways.

Trump is an exceptional leader. He can actually change minds. He is more of a populist than a true traditional conservative IMO. He speaks the will of the average voter who is not out to get something for nothing. He fights the elites who have gained firm control of our nation and other nations around the world. The people want to rule themselves, they do not want to live in a world controlled by elite billionaires, dictators, bureaucrats, deep state players, government unions, mainstream media, foundations, etc. President Trump threatens their power structure and has the strength to stand against them. At least he has so far, and many millions are working for him in their own little way.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 10/5/2019 at 9:38 PM, DayTrader said:

Not at all, they are very clear, trust me. Cowards. Unreal. 

Of course, the guy just wants to say China haven't done anything and I agree. Pointless. Just ignore the bigger picture, call them cowards compared to Ghandi, yawn...

 

Not sure anyone made this point, but the British basically tolerated and encouraged Gandhi. Gandhi himself stated his strategy ONLY worked on countries like Britain where he could win the sympathy of the "enemy" of those countries by choosing peace and love to win them over. Similar to MLK, who appealed to our christianity and common religious values of Equality (Equality being an invention of Christianity) and Justice.

That would not work on China, to whom the Christian values of mercy are a foreign concept. Even globalism is a foreign concept to China, whose form of Communism was always highly nationalist, forged in the fires of war. As someone who speaks Chinese, I can tell you, their culture is very nationalist, even the word for China in their language is "middle kingdom" akin to a sort of  "center of the world" in their thinking, and the view the Western global order and America in particular as a temporary blip in history compared to their thousands of years of civilization. The China of the past century, including now, would not tolerate a Gandhi style non violent resistance. And Hong Kong is still mostly non-violent even now. They are not purchasing firearms or killing anyone like we Americans did to the British.  You don't seem to understand what they are doing now IS non-violent resistance. You seem to want non-resistance, not non-violence.  The HK protesters are not bringing knives and stabbing people (they could), they are not getting black market firearms or trying to import them.

You are getting non-violence and non-resistance mixed up.

Another reason Gandhi was successful is that Gandhi's goals aligned with the goals of the British government as well, prior to WW2 British politics was dominated by those who wanted either an Imperial Federation or Home Rule which Gladstone was pushing, half of them wanted to give independence as it was, many viewed their colonies as a burdensome expense on the British taxpayer (indeed Britain spent fortunes building infrastructure, sending medicine, etc. on the ungrateful countries, polls show many wish they had never gotten independence)  The British mostly WANTED to give up their colonies (they viewed them as a tax burden), and the only real debate in Britain at the time was whether to have an Imperial Federation or Home Rule for their colonies, and the invention of the United Nations sapped the energy from federalists. Gandhi put a happy face on de-colonization and helped "sell" the idea to the British public, specifically British imperialists and nationalists who did not want to give up the Empire had to be convinced and Gandhi was their front man.

Gandhi said his goal was not India's true independence but a globalist goal of a United Nations federation: Gandhi said he wanted a "federation" of "interdependent states" which was exactly the goal of post WW2 to set up a League of Nations 2.0, the United Nations.

That was the goal of the British post-WW2, and even Pre-WW2 the British had been pushing for an "Imperial Federation" of equal states inside the commonwealth under the Queen, but nationalists in Britain, Ireland, and other areas preferred "Home Rule" instead. Similar to how many Britains today are Remainers or the more nationalist Brexiteers. Gandhi wanted India independent nominally, yet part of a federation with Britain and the rest of the world. Sadly historians totally forget the context of the times and what was actually going on.

 Gandhi's goals very closely aligned with the British government and the British elite classes, is why they promoted him over the more radical nationalists like Subhash Chandra Bose (who is strangely beloved by most Indians today). Same with MLK, the reason he was embraced for the most part by the government is because he was a friendlier, more globalist, and non-violent alternative to nationalist Malcolm X. MLK and Gandhi both preferred globalism to nationalism, as opposed to the nationalists Malcolm X and Bose who were not okay with being a mediocre part of a global order (India has not done very well, with over 1/4th of Indians today still unable to read or write making it significantly worse off than Kenya or even apartheid South Africa had better education). In the end, all of them were assassinated all the same though (except Bose who died in a plane crash), Gandhi was killed by a nationalist, while the opposite may be true in the case of Malcolm X and MLK (COINTELPRO target) as he had started pushing for a basic income that made him no longer aligned with the goals of those in power (LBJ was in power through JFK, MLK, and Malcom X's assassinations, killings just magically stopped when he left office).


Not saying one is better than the other, just trying to give history and context so you understand why Gandhi was not assassinated by the British, and he actually ended up being assassinated by one of his own countrymen, a nationalist who viewed Gandhi as a threat to India for agreeing to carve up India and hand pieces away to the Muslims.

Edited by IronResolve
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IronResolve said:

just trying to give history and context

Huh? Ok thanks :) He stated early on about Ghandi, suggesting change is possible without violence. I agree but he's talking about a different country in a different era, that was my point. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Huh? Ok thanks :) He stated early on about Ghandi, suggesting change is possible without violence. I agree but he's talking about a different country in a different era, that was my point. 

 

Yeah, my point to him was firstly that UNLIKE Hong Kong protesters whose nationalist goals (independence from China) are in opposition to the Chinese Communist Party's.  The reverse is true is whenever we talk about Gandhi or MLK, we have to remember there existed a scary boogeyman to the elites: nationalists like Subhash Chandra Bose and Malcolm X who wanted a black homeland, not to be part of federal systems. The governments and medias of the UK/US actually actively promoted the smiley face/non-violent globalists Gandhi/MLK because they feared the nationalist alternatives.

To hold up Gandhi/MLK as if they "took on a great empire" and somehow defeated it without violence is so misleading that I had to try to educate folks.  Gandhi and MLK both had anti-nationalist goals that aligned with much of the elites and government, and helped direct their peoples away from the scary nationalists.

Malcolm X speaking about MLK and his movement:  “A revolutionary wants land so he can set up his own nation, an independent nation. These Negroes aren’t asking for any nation—they’re trying to crawl back on the plantation”

King described himself as standing between the forces of complacency and the “hatred and despair of the black nationalist”.

Gandhi similarly stood between the forces of complacency and "the hatred and despair of the Indian nationalist" (like Bose). Gandhi had stated his support for the fight against racism and of the British war effort (though he was even opposed to using guns/violence to fight Nazis), and stated he "did not seek to raise an independent India from the ashes of Britain"

This is totally different from the nationalist uprising in Hong Kong and the situation in China where the goals of their elite and their government are completely opposed to Hong Kong independence.

  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

@IronResolve

KABOOM, finally someone has a clue what they're talking about.

Edited by DayTrader
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, IronResolve said:

 

Yeah, my point to him was firstly that UNLIKE Hong Kong protesters whose nationalist goals (independence from China) are in opposition to the Chinese Communist Party's.  The reverse is true is whenever we talk about Gandhi or MLK, we have to remember there existed a scary boogeyman to the elites: nationalists like Subhash Chandra Bose and Malcolm X who wanted a black homeland, not to be part of federal systems. The governments and medias of the UK/US actually actively promoted the smiley face/non-violent globalists Gandhi/MLK because they feared the nationalist alternatives.

To hold up Gandhi/MLK as if they "took on a great empire" and somehow defeated it without violence is so misleading that I had to try to educate folks.  Gandhi and MLK both had anti-nationalist goals that aligned with much of the elites and government, and helped direct their peoples away from the scary nationalists.

Malcolm X speaking about MLK and his movement:  “A revolutionary wants land so he can set up his own nation, an independent nation. These Negroes aren’t asking for any nation—they’re trying to crawl back on the plantation”

King described himself as standing between the forces of complacency and the “hatred and despair of the black nationalist”.

Gandhi similarly stood between the forces of complacency and "the hatred and despair of the Indian nationalist" (like Bose). Gandhi had stated his support for the fight against racism and of the British war effort (though he was even opposed to using guns/violence to fight Nazis), and stated he "did not seek to raise an independent India from the ashes of Britain"

This is totally different from the nationalist uprising in Hong Kong and the situation in China where the goals of their elite and their government are completely opposed to Hong Kong independence.

Wow, you are so far off the mark, I am flabbergasted.  The only points you have correct are: China is opposed to HK full independence [ie secession from China]; the UK feared indeed the alternatives to Ghandi.  Notwithstanding, your basic point is you opine the times and accomplishments of Ghandi are not pertinent to the HK situation of today. Let's leave it at that. 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm truly shocked. Winston's version is different.

Let's leave it at that.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 10/16/2019 at 1:05 PM, DayTrader said:

“But we are not going to allow university students to be unduly influenced, we are not going to allow theft of intellectual property, and we are not going to allow our government bodies or non-government bodies to be hacked into,” he said.    So they do this everywhere?

Just curious.  What intellectual property does Australia have to be stolen?  Am I right to believe that Australia's main industries are mining, farming and tourism?  In recent years, the pharmaceutical industry has shriveled due to lack of government supporting policy.  There isn't much manufacturing left with the last car manufacturing plant closed down a couple of years ago.

Disclosure: I used to be a permanent resident of Australia

Edited by Hotone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hotone said:

resident of Australia

Not entirely sure, I believe the remark was from their Home Sec or equivalent. Whatever they were trying to hack into I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2019 at 9:21 PM, ronwagn said:

Trump is an exceptional leader. He is more of a populist than a true traditional conservative IMO. 

Definitely yes on those two.

Personally I think he's enriching himself with the office like nobody we've ever seen, and yes, delivering a lot that was asked. Like his unknown tax returns, enough folks are good with it that in one sense it doesn't matter. My Italian friends just laugh and say welcome to what we've had for years. Benjamin Netanyahu is seriously corrupt by all accounts, but the country keeps him in power, though he is jail bound once he isn't the PM due to some odd rules they have where the PM can't be touched. Honest high end politicians are probably rare, just degrees of crooked. The USA is not some shining beacon of decency, but the average American's "can do" is special and beyond what I've seen in countries I lived in.

For Trump fans, you need to fear his invigoration of opposition, not the petty self enriching. Today the Democrats are fractured, the few minutes of the last debate I listened to was lunacy, some of it downright scary, but ultimately they probably will unite against Trump. The nomination process isn't designed to pick overall appeal, but rather appeal to the few who vote in primaries so they might pick someone the none-tribal voters would refuse. So a good chance the dems lose despite Trump's best efforts to massively alienate anyone out of his core.

Blowback is a bitch. But as a two termer at most it won't effect Trump, even if it cripples the GOP as a force for an extended time.

I have a personal fetish for integrity. Clearly I struggle with most politicians. Too often a Hobson's choice. Being in Texas with national elections my vote don't matter for statewide situations. It's red or dead from the delegates perspective. There typically are real choices on local elections though and real election for many offices is the primaries.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DayTrader said:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-protests-couriers/china-stops-couriers-from-shipping-black-clothing-to-hong-kong-amid-protests-idUKKBN1WX1A4

China stops couriers from shipping black clothing to Hong Kong amid protests

Hahahahahah oh that'll stop 'em.  ''Ooh I can't wear black? Aaaaaaaagggghhhh!!'' 

Quick DT! Go short (...or long, or whatever) on black textile dye!!!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, John Foote said:

Definitely yes on those two.

Personally I think he's enriching himself with the office like nobody we've ever seen, and yes, delivering a lot that was asked. Like his unknown tax returns, enough folks are good with it that in one sense it doesn't matter. My Italian friends just laugh and say welcome to what we've had for years. Benjamin Netanyahu is seriously corrupt by all accounts, but the country keeps him in power, though he is jail bound once he isn't the PM due to some odd rules they have where the PM can't be touched. Honest high end politicians are probably rare, just degrees of crooked. The USA is not some shining beacon of decency, but the average American's "can do" is special and beyond what I've seen in countries I lived in.

For Trump fans, you need to fear his invigoration of opposition, not the petty self enriching. Today the Democrats are fractured, the few minutes of the last debate I listened to was lunacy, some of it downright scary, but ultimately they probably will unite against Trump. The nomination process isn't designed to pick overall appeal, but rather appeal to the few who vote in primaries so they might pick someone the none-tribal voters would refuse. So a good chance the dems lose despite Trump's best efforts to massively alienate anyone out of his core.

Blowback is a bitch. But as a two termer at most it won't effect Trump, even if it cripples the GOP as a force for an extended time.

I have a personal fetish for integrity. Clearly I struggle with most politicians. Too often a Hobson's choice. Being in Texas with national elections my vote don't matter for statewide situations. It's red or dead from the delegates perspective. There typically are real choices on local elections though and real election for many offices is the primaries.

Did you worry about the Clintons and Obamas enriching themselves? They needed to, Trump doesn't, doesn't take a salary, and probably would have made a lot more money sticking to his own endeavors. He has provided leadership that no one else was willing to even attempt. I have waited all my life for a politician to actually take on the establishment as he has done. I didn't like him at first because he wasn't a typical conservative like Ted Cruz. He does have the people skills, speaking skills, emotional intelligence, drive, and will to do the best he can, and has performed better than any president I have seen. He is looking out for the working person, those who want to work, and those who are building the country rather than those who are trying to convert it into a socialist dictatorship. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Oh .... maybe not

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-protests-ceo/china-plans-to-replace-hong-kong-leader-lam-with-interim-chief-executive-ft-idUKKBN1X12II  

China plans to replace Hong Kong leader Lam with 'interim' chief executive 

(Reuters) - China plans to replace Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam with an “interim” chief executive, the Financial Times reported, citing people briefed on the deliberations, which would bring to a close Lam’s rule after months of often-violent pro-democracy protests. Lam has become a lightning rod for protests over fears that Beijing is tightening its grip, limiting the freedoms enjoyed under the “one country, two systems” principle enshrined when colonial ruler Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997. Sources told the FT that officials in China want a stabilized situation before a final decision can be made on leadership changes, as they do not want to be seen to be giving in to violence.

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.