The true face of US politics

Manning is a hero. What he leaked are the hypocrisy of the corrupt government. That's why they hate him that much. What's the difference from him to "deep throat"?

 

Good question, but I have to disagree. In "deep throat's" case the information was known by the informant, and that information was more clear on illegal activity. Manning stole massive amounts of data he had no understanding of, and released it publicly.

 

Wrong. Mark Felt, the FBI associate director who leaked key information to the press during the Watergate scandle. He did not like Nixon. He deliberately sold his boss while Manning just behaved to let people getting more information.

 

Surely you understand the difference between Felt, a whistle-blower (albeit a vengeful one), and Manning, a fool.

The info Manning shared was unknown to him, there was too much info for him to understand. Felt knew the info and understood it well. Manning released info without knowing what it actually was, or what the consequenes of releasing that info would be... aside from his arrest if caught and that it would obviously damage the U.S. Intelligence and Diplomatic communities. Felt knew it would damage Nixon, and that was the goal. Manning couldn't know all the ramifications of his actions. Mark Felt knew the ramifications, he knew the info... he wanted to use that specific knowledge against Nixon. Manning had no target, only a desire for freedom of information, for all of the World to be able to have access to government, and military, information.

I myself want access to all sorts of information too... but I acknowledge that some information MUST remain unattainable. Take nuclear technology for example, the ability to create nuclear fission... honestly, it's in the Worlds interest that I don't have access to that information, hell... I shouldn't even own a gun... I'd inevitibly use it to change channels on the TV or kill a fly in the house lol

Manning may well be a hero to the Freedom of Information groups out there who want transparency in government, but that kind of freedom can't be attained, and it shouldn't have been attempted. He released information knowing it was not meant to be read publicly. We can all be grateful that no significant nuclear technology was released through his unbelievably foolish actions. I am grateful... 'cause that damn fly keeps pestering me and I'd nuke the bugger if I had a chance to...

 

Manning is a scapegoat of a plot - a trap to control internet sites by censorship. None of the information they enable him to release were important. It may only embarrase some diplomats. That's all. Their original plan is to shut down the web sites they disliked by planting those information. Assange's wikeleaks is the living plant. It plays the same role of "Bin Laden". Bin Laden went to the place where US wanted to occupy. Wikileaks post the information on to the web sites which the Feds want to shut down. It was a part of the plot of Iran war at that time which was soured then.

The new plot is SOPA, PIPA. - to shut down unfavorite cyber sites in the name of protect music patent. Manning is a sacrifice. Assange and Bin Laden are false flags - both are the assets of the Feds.

 

Another thing that made me question the legitimacy of Wikileaks, is why didn't they find anything on 9/11? I'm not saying I know who did what, I'm just saying I believe 100% what we were told is NOT the truth. So what did Wikileaks end up saying about 9/11? They said the official report was accurate. That has me thoroughly convinced that Wikileaks is indeed another false flag.

 

Bradley Manning is a criminal. He released information to the enemy, regardless of whether it was important or not. That's a pretty big deal and I think he should rot in jail for the rest of his life.

 

That's from different angle. What kind of important imformation had he leaked? While some people hate him so much because they have many criminal secrets they don't want others to know. Just like Watergate scandal.

Some people think military budget is not enough. Say, "Spend hundreds of billions fighting arab battles and now can not afford our own army". While others think military spend too much, say "spend more on national defense than the next top 10 countries spend combined?" It depends on in which plateform you stand.

A board held by a protester said, "Military and war 50%, Prison 10% Education 7%". It's about the budget distribution. The media won't discuss it. Law makers dare not touch it, that's the problem. They only chop the weakest group - to cut at the field whete there is few left for cut.
Obviously you are not for the people's sake.

 

As I have said, this is a covert totalitarian country in the name of democracy. That's why a war criminal could be selected twice as president. (by rigged election) They can turn white into black and overturn the value. The following opinion is from westerns not from Islamic extremists.

http://joyb.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/bradley-manning-nobel-peace-prize.html

February 1st 2012 the entire parliamentary group of The Movement of the Icelandic Parliament nominated Private Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize.

1 million signatures delivered to the Nobel Nominating Committee would be a huge
endorsement.

Add your name at:

http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/manning-nobel

 

They start to loot people's asset for their spending.

 

Most Red States Take More Federal Money Than They Pay

A recent report in the New York Times ("Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend On It", February 11, 2012) finds that more "red states" than "blue states" get more federal tax dollars than they pay taxes to the federal government. Citing 2010 Census and IRS data, the Times reports that the 50 states and the District of Columbia, on average, received $1.29 in federal spending for every federal tax dollar they paid. Nineteen Republican/Red states received more than $1 in federal spending for every tax dollar they sent to Washington, whereas 16 Democratic/Blue states did. Conversely, only three Republican/Red states received less than $1 for every $1 of taxes they paid (Nebraska, Arkansas, and Texas) while 13 Democratic/Blue states received less than they paid in.

http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/most-red-states-take-more-federal-money-than-they-pay

 

Of course, everybody in the world is lying about everything and YOU'RE the only one who knows better.

 

If you want to have fun get a bunch of farmers in a room and listen to them try to explain why farm subsidies aren't welfare.

 

FBI Taught Agents They Could ‘Bend or Suspend the Law’
By Spencer Ackerman
March 28, 2012
　
UPDATE: The FBI has released the memo in question. Read it
here.

The FBI taught its agents that they could sometimes "bend or suspend the law" in their hunt for terrorists and criminals. Other FBI instructional material, discovered during a months-long review of FBI counterterrorism training, warned agents against shaking hands with "Asians" and said Arabs were prone to "Jekyll & Hyde temper tantrums."
These are just some of the disturbing results of the FBI’s six-month review into how the Bureau trained its counterterrorism agents. That review, now complete, did not result in a single disciplinary action for any instructor. Nor did it mandate the retraining of any FBI agent exposed to what the Bureau concedes was inappropriate material. Nor did it look at any intelligence reports that might have been influenced by the training. All that has a powerful senator saying that the review represents a "failure to adequately address" the problem.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/fbi-bend-suspend-law/

 

I've always thought of the laws the police follow as bendable anyway... I've had it happen to me on more than one occasion... so to me this is nothing new. The few times it happened to me I wasn't concerned about the repercussions of their "near-illegal" acts, but I guess if I had been I would have put up a fight, gotten arrested, and had my day in court to fight any of the resulting charges.

The argument lately (not necessarily specifically about the post above) is on not having access to a lawyer or in having "a day in court." If that is true then yes, I'd be against any law that contained that kind of provision... but then again, I'm not concerned that I'm actually going to be affected.

If I was arrested though, and held in jail or prison, without being able to see a lawyer or have a day in court, then any kid gloves I had on at the time of arrest would later be taken off. Extensive property damage comin' up!

 

In 2010, as the nation slowly ground its way from Great Recession to recovery, 93 percent of national income gains went to the richest 1 percent of Americans. As Reuters's David Cay Johnston pointed out today, this makes the 2010 recovery quite different from the recovery that followed the Great Depression, as then, income gains were widely shared by the population, not concentrated at the very top.
　
Shocking Chart: The 99% Screwed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20QF9jR-OUo&feature=player_embedded#!

 

Romney knows US politics better than all of you. - that his election does not depend on your votes. It depends on the Feds (FBI and Pentagon) who manipulated the voting system by rigged election and faked poll. )They control media.)

　

 

--------------

 

They rewarded for generously spending your money.