Get things done? All the hackers have done is expose plans to counteract gangs and cartels (as in Arizona) or expose irrelevant diplomatic conversations that haven't produced anything of value for anyone. You are actively encouraging illegal activity and blaming the victims for not doing enough to defend themselves. You want to be able to spout this crap in the aftermath of a horrible hacking story without anyone responding with "pointed comments". Tough.

"
Santa is a liberal non-interventionist right? Right. Completely uncritical of NATO and its crimes or denies they ever happened, but regurgitates without question whatever made up atrocity the media hordes can come up with about the Libyan government."

HA NATO is aiming for Down Syndrome kids! Of Course! You cracked it open Putin. The evil fatcats at NATO realized there was a light of decency in Lybia so they aimed their precision bombs at the coloring table! There is obviously intent here! You did it Putin!

What about the hackers taking out the drug cartels in Monterrey? Or the one that got all the child porn people convicted including a federal judge that planned to molest boys? Or Gary Warner? And what about Anon warning the UK Public Health Admin of their security holes? Or the hackers that let the world know AT&T was helping the NSA tap phones? Or ihackcharities.org?

The list is miles long and you know why you don't hear about them? Because the news doesn't care and all you are is a spoon-fed scare-tactic news junkie.

On News International here is some news from the UK:


(Repost from UK forum, to let DUers know what the News of the World could be like)

On BBC Radio 4's "The World At One" today, Paul McMullan, the ex-News of the World reporter and deputy editor, who was the one that Hugh Grant bugged in retaliation for his own treatment, talked about his past behaviour. After a Sept 2010 BBC interview, he came back to the reporter who had interviewed him, wanting to speak about an article he had written in 1995 - a News of the World expose on the daughter of the actor Denholm Elliott (Indiana Jones films, Trading Places, Room With a View etc.):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b012bxf8 (about 12 minutes 50 seconds into broadcast)

McMullan: "There was no wrongdoing here at all. There was just someone who had fallen on hard times and actually was very fragile."

Paul McMullan's story about Jennifer Elliott alleged she was begging outside a London Tube station, and was working on occasions as a prostitute. Mr. McMullan told me the paper had acted on information it received as a result of a payment one of his colleagues made to a police officer.

McM: "The going rate for that kind of thing might have been two to five hundred pounds, and that would have been authorised, and he would have been paid, and that's one policeman kept happy, and he would have been on the lookout for another story, because, you know, money is money."

"Do you know for sure that this story came from a policeman? Do you know for sure that he was paid for the information?"

McM: "Yes, that's what I was told. I was put on the story, saying 'this has come from a policeman who has told us that this is really the person, go and find her'".

The reason why Paul McMullan was particularly concerned about this story, and why it was playing on his conscience is because of what happened next:

McM: "There was a few stories about her over the coming years about how she was still struggling with drugs and then I remember the last one, which was reporting on her suicide, and ... err ... yep."

"She took her own life?"

McM: "She did, yeah."

"Do you think what you wrote had any effect on that? Do you think that decision had anything to do with what you wrote and what you did?"

McM: "Yeah, I'd totally humiliated and destroyed her. It wasn't necessary. She didn't deserve it. She was having a bad time after her own dad had died, and, yeah, I went a step too far. And it was based on, now, a criminal act, so you've got to question in some cases, criminal acts perpetrated by journalists aren't always justified and in this case it was not. Not only was it not justified ,it was downright wrong - I sincerely regret it, and again, if there was anyone to apologise to, I would, but they're all dead - mother's dead, she's dead, father's dead. So in any way seeking atonement, I can at least say in this case we were wrong."

Fulhamish says that the defense generally employed by journalists of only ''telling the truth'' rings very hollow in this context.

Rupert Murdoch is the one who should have to pay. The man should be be forbidden from being involved in the news media.

putin, you seem to have done a lot of harm to you arguement when you first claim 'NATO intentionally attacked...' and then go on to reference an article where it says that they don't know what the intended target was. It is possible that NATO made a mistake.

"There were no children at the school when the missiles hit early on Saturday morning, since Friday begins the weekend in Libya."

or of course maybe they are smart enough to only bomb a target when there was no children there...

either incompetence or super-competence kinda turns your version of events on it's head.

So Spyman who gets to decide who is "involved in the news media?"

The law. Countries like Australia and America have laws about who is allowed to own newspapers and tv stations etc. That is why Rupert Murdoch became an American citizen. As a foreigner he would not have been allowed to own as much as he does. There are also rules about whether someone is a fit and proper person.

Lol Tettleton, I don't understand free speech at all. Show me evidence that I don't understand what free speech is. Also, show me evidence that you do.

TC, the new Deepak Chopra of history/economics/politics/everything.

Largeham, supporting the boycott of a newspaper in order to silence defines such individuals as not understanding free speech. I would use an intellectual I thoroughly disagree with on most points except this one as an example of what free speech is, Noah Chomsky, who defended the right to denounce the Holocaust all over Europe. I would also suggest that the recent Supreme Court decision protecting the repulsive protests of military funerals as a definition of true free speech.
I'm extremely comfortable with my definition of free speech.

As far as Deepak, I consider him a used car salesman, but of course if you consider his views on history, economics, or politics informed and helpful knock yourself out.

Err.... it's Noam.... You really don't like him much do you... Oh, and you're really debating on every topic out there throwing names in the mix hoping to look brilliant.

Dude, you're dumb! You can't even win a game on this site. You can't think nor write, and you surely can't read.

Now that was a mild insult. Feel free to throw it back. And please, please oh please, try to be somewhat creative (if that's not beyond you).

Ah Tettleton, I'm quite sure I never said anywhere that I support the boycott. Also, as a rabid free market enthusiast yourself, wouldn't you support a boycott? I thought that's how the free market works, if consumers don't like a certain company or product, they boycott it so it goes out of business, no need for the evil, oppressive government to come in and shut down the business.

Also, re the Deepak Chopra joke, sarcasm my dear friend. According to dictionary.com
Sarcasm: sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm]
noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

How is this a bigger scandal than the revolting actions of a single tabloid newspaper? I've read a few articles on this, and I still don't really understand.

""There were no children at the school when the missiles hit early on Saturday morning, since Friday begins the weekend in Libya.""

You evidently neglected to read the part where it said the children were due in that particular Saturday morning, but luckily hadn't arrived yet. But you of course would interpret that to be NATO's "super competence". They're just *that* compassionate they somehow knew the children would be coming in slightly later that morning and then went ahead and bombed the school for disabled children & orphanage. Of course had the children arrived before the bombing, no doubt you'd have claimed that Gaddafi purposely put them there. Win-win for you.

And you also didn't read the part where the article said there that the only possible target of interest in the vicinity of the building was a television station, which was a non-military civilian target. But of course NATO has a habit of targeting journalists and tv stations.

So how am I wrong here? Or do you just want to defend NATO no matter what civilian targets it bombs?

Well then I'm mistaken about your support of the boycott largeham.
After reading your statement I guess you think boycotts are monolithic since you don't differentiate anywhere in your statement for the different motivations that drive boycotts.
A boycott to get legislation repealed is the same as a boycott targeting a companies hiring practices is the same as a boycott by hypocrites who offer rhetorical support of free speech but use a boycott to destroy an oracle of speech they object too.

Monolithic-indivisible and uniform
Differentiate-Identify differences
Deepak Chopra-Used Car Salesman

If anybody is interested in NATO's record of targeting civilians rather than military targets, I can send a litany of info on the Yugoslavia campaign, where they bombed more hospitals and schools than they did tanks. Orathaic would probably say the Yugoslav government deliberately put the schools and hospitals in civilian areas, so it's all part of a conspiracy. Oh no wait, they were "mistakes", gee aerial bombardments from high altitude rarely hit their supposed "intended" target it seems, but yet NATO goes ahead with this line of attack anyway rather than risk actual harm to their precious troops. Plus their troops won't have to deal with the whole nasty issue of depleted uranium and the carcinogens that NATO dumps on their targets of choice.

So as a free market blowhard you oppose people voting with their wallet and expressing disapproval by boycotting a company they don't like? I'm confused as to how these "free market" principles work. Apparently people aren't free to send their business elsewhere in your libertarian utopia. So much for free association and buying what you choose to buy. In TC's hellish version of an ideal society we'd all be forced to buy shitty tabloids.

It was war. People die. Sorry bro.

Lol, I never said anything about the boycott, the closest I got was to apologise on behalf of Australia for the existence of Rupert Murdoch. Are you blind?

*Personal anecdote alert* I heard that by 1995 or so, most Serbs wanted Milosevic gone, however the bombing of Belgrade greatly increased his popularity. However, I heard this third hand, so I can't verify it.

"They're just *that* compassionate they somehow knew the children would be coming in slightly later that morning and then went ahead and bombed the school for disabled children & orphanage. Of course had the children arrived before the bombing, no doubt you'd have claimed that Gaddafi purposely put them there."

have you considered that war isn't always nice? or is your arguement that violence is never justified? because i'm pretty sure you can make that arguement but you'll have to come up with a damn good way to guarentee my safety before i listen to you.

"gee aerial bombardments from high altitude rarely hit their supposed "intended" target it seems, but yet NATO goes ahead with this line of attack anyway rather than risk actual harm to their precious troops."

maybe 20 years ago this was true, but aerial bombing is now much more precise.

I no, i'm not defending NATO's actions at any other time. That's like asking you to justify RT news reporting when Communist Russia were known for complete state control of the media.

Besides, in the 90s Europeans were allowing a civil war/genocide in their own backyard, and it took US leadership to bring international military forces to bear. In 2011, it was French and UK calls to stop this atrocity, and the fact that the US lived up to it's NATO responsibilities is commendable (even while the US military is stretched pretty thin on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan - they didn't let two more questionable wars get in the way of doing the right thing here.)

and largeham, if you just mute Tettleton this conversation becomes much more intelligible.

also, Putin, lastly, i'm pretty sure the 'compound' or home, of any military dictator is a valid military target. Maybe not in a country with a democratically elected President or Prime Minister.... those become civilian targets, right? so what is Gaddaffi?

"Largeham, supporting the boycott of a newspaper in order to silence defines such individuals as not understanding free speech."

No... It means that I dont want to buy their shit and suggest that nobody else does either. They can say anything they want, I am under no obligation to support them in that speech, and I have every right to suggest that others do not as well. You are the one (as usual) who has no understanding of what you speak about.

Santa Claus, not buying something and organizing others not to buy it to silence it are two different things, individual action and organized action.
I've become aware you aren't familiar with a surprising number of basic ideas like this.

Have you been able to figure out yet that Brinkley's 1996 book End of Reform does not incorporate any of the latest econometric research on the Great Depression? Have you been able the figure out that the history of the Great Depression is predominately "economic" history and that a study that doesn't incorporate the latest econometric research is an outdate study? Do you have any idea what econometric studies are?

I dont care about the econometric research on the GD, all i said, AGAIN is that the New Deal wasnt Keynseyan and that FDR tried to balance the budget, you are an idiot.

And by organizing a boycott isnt forcing anyone to join, it is itself protected by the first amendment and completely valid. The first amendment says NOTHING about preventing people from taking legal action to prevent speech. The first amendment states that congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech the 14th Amendment applied this to the states. Where is the amendment that applied it to John Q Public? You are a clown, everyone knows it

TC now begins your education on boycotts.

The right to assemble and boycott is as fundamental to American History as any freedom of speech. The Colonies first recourse against Britain was the boycott, there were boycotts on products created with slave labor, the civil rights era boycotts helped end segregation and the grape boycotts improved farm workers rights. The boycott is as important an American institution (and perhaps an older institution) than free speech in the country. Both are applications of American rights of free speech, one through the written word and one through the pocketbook. The boycott is not only not antithetical to free speech, it is the illustration of free speech.

OK, who here hasn't had the good sense to mute Tettleton already? Come on gang, get with the program. Mute Tettleton and your life gets much easier.

No actually the colonists first recourse against the British was to protest for representation in Parliament and when this was refused the demanded that the sovereignty of their colonial legislatures be recognized. This was the beginning of the sovereignty debate that was the central issue in causing the American Revolution. The fact that Americans turned to boycott came after the Stamp Act.
The first protestations from the colony came as a result of the Sugar Act and the Currency Act of 1764.
The fact that you repeatedly speak in generalities, make inaccurate statements, and seem to have no grasp of specific historical events doesn't surprise at all.
If you want to read the latest research on the evolution of the economic boycotts you should read the Marketplace of Revolution by Breen. I've read and reread it. Masterful book.
Of course it was written in the 21st century and your education ended in the late 20th.

The boycott isn't antithetical to free speech, but you make the same mistake largeham made by treating boycotts as monolithic actions instead of differentiating between the goals of the boycott.
For example when a women boycotts having sex with you she is doing so in an attempt to halt your bloodline to save the world from another brain dead teacher.
When you boycott buying the News of the World, a newspaper in case you didn't know or forgot, you are attacking the press and free speech.