Non-Fic Julian Assange arrested by British Police.

Well i don't know which one to believe the official story that wasn't backed by scientific evidence and 'conspiracy theory' that are actually backed by one.
Also it never work like that in reality. The whole government did not come out to get you it's just sit in silence when some of them do.

 

I will make it simple :
For all the failings of the U.S. government, I am sure third world countries would welcome them to be in charge of their country.
You should educate yourself more on a China..
The grass is not greener on the other side. Even my Chinese college roommate from New York doesn't want me to come to China anymore.
But you have people who still think Chinese government is better in any way than the U.S. government.
I would take a government spying on me, over one that forces me to take birth control pills, monitors my menstruation and forces abortion etc.

 

I know what happened in China. Hell i even know what happen in Korea and Taiwan weren't much different. Just aren't much public than what happened in PRC. I know but like I've said by now the system employed in western country have failed by way of misinformed, ignorant and distracted population. Julian Assange and as well his sources did the traditional journalism of trying to inform the public of gross violation of law and misconduct that happened under government constitution in hope the public opinion can and will change or correct that. Turn out the public did not even have any opinion on that. They did not even care.
How an electorate make a constructive choices ? By getting informed about it. This cases is another evidence of population ignorant by design as well ignorant by will. With such failure at the base democracy has failed.

 

Dumping documents is not journalism.
I do not consider Assange a journalist.
Journalism involves vetting what you report.
It is also common knowledge that Assange worked with Gucifer that is Russian Spy linked.
It was a cyber attack.
Journalism does not mean it is okay to steal from someone's safe.
Journalists protect their sources but don't condone theft.
Assange methods are extreme, it is no different from those who think Stephen Colbert and John Oliver are journalists on the left and those who think Fox news personalities on the right are journalists.
There is a correct way to do journalism and Assange isn't it

 

Journalist and journalism only inform as live as real as honest and as neutral possible of news. Traditionally they would not have any opinion on their articles unless they're asked personally for comments which is again separately. So if a journalist have contact that act for their source for a crime report that doesn't mean the journalist condone crimes. Journalist publish so the public were informed. That's it. You've come a long way around the vulgar politicized journalism to think that journalist would automatically support crimes for reporting crime.
Julian Assange vetted his publication. They redacted any and most individually punishing content before releasing them. There were no document dumping. They're all edited to redact sensitive information safe for the relevant information on it for what ? Traditional journalism. To make them as authentic as possible for the public.
And the Guccifer Russian hacking things were never proved. Haven't you had enough after Mueller found nothing ?

 

That is not journalism because I took a journalism class myself. You say neutral, then answer me this, in the spirit of neutrality why didnt we see all the emails of Trump leaked too instead of just of Clinton.
What you are calling journalism is not journalism.
Journalism is foremost about integrity.
Integrity means that you do not get your info regardless of the means.
That is why paparazzi are not considered journalists.
I made the analogy already

Stealing content from a safe and publishing it online is not journalism.

You mentioned Meuller..? Hahaha, that is a red flag and a sign that I need to get out of this conversation and I am going to do just that.
Thanks for the conversation.

One last thing, the world is as beautiful or as disgusting as you the lens you choose to view it with.
Peace!

 

Technically and theoretically, any nation can be considered a democracy, because if enough people choose to vote (not actual voting, but hey) to change the leadership, then it can happen. I don't think a lot of people would agree with that statement, but in facts, if enough people physically vote against the government (ie rise up against), they can topple them, be it at grievous costs.

You can't give people maximum security , safety and freedom all at the same time. Giving too much freedom at the cost of security is anarchy, giving too much security at the cost of freedom is a police state. And giving them too much of either without the cost of the other ? Dream on.

Probably a very famous quote is 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

A nice picture I remembered from before
Basically it needs balance, or things will go to hell

 

Fun fact ? Wikileaks put a bounty for leaks of Trump tax return. If there's in fact someone to leak them to the public and put wikileaks to use to publish them there will be one for Trump as well.
And your analogy is wrong. When it involved the public at large it isn't a 'safe' you're talking about as if they're some private matter.

 

That's what I'm pointing at.