PDA

View Full Version : Cenk Uyger on MSNBC interviews Julian Assange



astrid
23rd December 2010, 12:11
The newest interview in the U.S. of Julian Assange on the Wikileaks Thing. Discussion about the 1917 Espionage Act and our political leaders including V.P. Biden, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee. Assange making his case in a short 15+ minute interview with Cenk Uyger on MSNBC's "The Dylan Ratigan Show" Dec. 21, 2010.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBJOBl1G3Kc

Etherios
23rd December 2010, 12:58
haha he actually turned the terorist accusation and toss it on them... It made a logical end result that gov are the terorists

JoshERTW
23rd December 2010, 20:55
Interviews like this confirm my belief that the guy is genuine and not some kind of CIA plant. That's not to say that some of the material being leaked was not hand selected by agency people prior to getting into Wikileaks file system, but I think the guy himself has good intentions when it comes to his work (as opposed to his dealings with women - which IMO is a distraction from the real issues of secrecy and gov't accountability to the rule of law and the right to free speech).

Zook
23rd December 2010, 22:55
Hi Josh,


Interviews like this confirm my belief that the guy is genuine and not some kind of CIA plant. That's not to say that some of the material being leaked was not hand selected by agency people prior to getting into Wikileaks file system, but I think the guy himself has good intentions when it comes to his work (as opposed to his dealings with women - which IMO is a distraction from the real issues of secrecy and gov't accountability to the rule of law and the right to free speech).

Well, for my money, it's precisely interviews like this that further reinforce the pattern of the sockpuppet.

You have MSNBC (an oligarchial blowpipe) hosting Emmanuel Assange ... oops ... I mean Julian Goldstein ... er ... whats-his-name ... Other oligarchial instruments call for his execution, prosecution, rendition (and perhaps in that order). You have the David Frost interview on Al Jazeera (another oligarchial blowpipe). You have his ongoing kangaroo court case. You have the multiplicity of oligarchial connections (e.g. his fawning opinion of Benjamin Netanyahu; his Rothschild lawyer, Mark Stephens; Matt Rothschild's adoring defense of Osama Assange ... er ... Julian Emmanuel ... I mean, Immanuel Kant (and quite the philosopher, I must say!)); etc. etc.

Of course, the piece de resistance of this entire mass-appealing, masquerading, mind-atrophic, morrisdancing, mockery from the megaCentigrade furnace of Mephistopheles ... one that perfumes the corridors of critical thought with the rancid smell of puppet socks: Julian Savante's brilliant interpretation of the genuine conspiracy of 9/11/2001 as a false conspiracy.

It's simple folks. You got a rabbit on the greyhound track. Unless and until you awake from the dream of diminutive David and his supertechnological slingshot; you'll be running around and around the oval track. And when the automatonic rabbit wears down and loses the shape of the rabbit; they'll stick a brand new rabbit on the mechanical arm to get your juices going again. Before Julian Assange (there ... I knew if I said it enough times, I'd get his name right!) ... there was Osama bin Laden.

Humble opinions all around.

:typing:

ps: You can interchange oligarchial with Rothschildean if you like.

Arpheus
23rd December 2010, 23:11
I love you uncle zook heheheheh.

3optic
23rd December 2010, 23:26
It's simple folks. You got a rabbit on the greyhound track. Unless and until you awake from the dream of diminutive David and his supertechnological slingshot; you'll be running around and around the oval track. And when the automatonic rabbit wears down and loses the shape of the rabbit; they'll stick a brand new rabbit on the mechanical arm to get your juices going again. Before Julian Assange (there ... I knew if I said it enough times, I'd get his name right!) ... there was Osama bin Laden.


Great paragraph, Zook. I don't follow your logic though. Assange denies 9/11 conspiracy. This is not terribly alarming. So do 95% of most professional journalists. This does not make them CIA. He takes a Rothschild lawyer. And..? I'm sure we can find stranger bedfellows. Matt Rothschild writes a glowing review. Are all Rothschilds to be considered in-human monsters who tow the family line (which is..?)? Doesn't happen in most families. In fact, you can probably find a higher incidence of rebellion in aristocratic families particularly when it's members are of a young age (guessing here, but I'd be interested to know if statistics can back this up ;)). Even they are not immune to the ravages of the perception squareness on their youthful persona.

Arpheus
23rd December 2010, 23:29
Is it just me or was he blinking a LOT more then a person normally does tho?That looked strange to me,other then that he seemed very calm through the whole thing.

astrid
23rd December 2010, 23:49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mcSXge4Qo

Zook
24th December 2010, 11:50
Good morning Triple Optics, the Earth says hello!


Great paragraph, Zook. I don't follow your logic though. Assange denies 9/11 conspiracy. This is not terribly alarming. So do 95% of most professional journalists.


If that is the case, doesn't cognitive resonance behoove one to see such a skewed statistic as terribly alarming? And if it is the case, what does it say about the quality of professional journalism? Don't know about you, but I've been seeing professional journalists drive around in yellow banana-shaped cars for quite some time now. Look out! Whoa ... that one just missed a speeding hot-dog-in-a-bun promo car!



This does not make them CIA.


Nope. But it makes them look just as stupid (or worse) when they deny facts that anyone with even the most modest physics education can establish in Usain Bolt time.



He takes a Rothschild lawyer. And..? I'm sure we can find stranger bedfellows.


But we're not looking to find strange bedfellows. We're looking to preponderate the evidence. Big difference.



Matt Rothschild writes a glowing review. Are all Rothschilds to be considered in-human monsters who tow the family line (which is..?)? Doesn't happen in most families. In fact, you can probably find a higher incidence of rebellion in aristocratic families particularly when it's members are of a young age (guessing here, but I'd be interested to know if statistics can back this up ;)). Even they are not immune to the ravages of the perception squareness on their youthful persona.

Except that the rule is not the exception. By all indications, Matt Rothschild is the rule and not the exception. You'll realize that sooner than later by asking him one simple question: what brought down WTC7 on 9'/11/2001? If you prefer waiting for your answers, just keep reading his columns ... at some point, the light bulb will find its wattage.

Humble opinions all around.

:typing:

3optic
27th December 2010, 16:43
Touché, Zookumar. Your rebuttals might provoke some painful subconscious thought form in me if they weren't so much fun to read. My 95% was a spurious number. My apologies. It is curious that more haven't sided with the evidence but that has been the way with many of these staged events.