A Bit Of Irony From Julian Assange

Julian Assange is a wimpy little man who took it upon himself to decide what the world needs to know with regard to classified documents that he illegally released to the public. Assange believes that people deserve and have every right to know what secrets governments keep and Assange has taken great pleasure in revealing the secrets of the US. Assange wanted to embarrass this country and he has been quite successful at it.

He is currently in a bit of legal trouble stemming from a few sexual encounters he had in Sweden. Assange is trying not to be extradited and is working with his lawyers to avoid being sent to answer for his alleged crimes. I do not know what happened and I do not care. Assange is accused of sex crimes and that matter is between him, the alleged victims and the Swedish government.

The Guardian UK released information about Assange and his case and Assange is not happy about that. He believes that the Guardian published leaked information from Swedish authorities in an effort to influence his bail hearing. Does any of this sound familiar?

Here is the Irony, Assange is upset that someone leaked information about him when the entirety of his fame rests on the fact that he released leaked information. While Assange is only too happy to release our classified information, some of which is embarrasing, here is what he had to say when information about him was published:

Speaking from the English mansion where he is confined on bail, the 39-year-old Australian said that the decision to publish incriminating police files about him was “disgusting”. The Guardian had previously used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.

Mr Assange is understood to be particularly angry with a senior reporter at the paper and former friend for “selectively publishing” incriminating sections of the police report, although The Guardian made clear that the WikiLeaks founder was given several days to respond.

Mr Assange claimed the newspaper received leaked documents from Swedish authorities or “other intelligence agencies” intent on jeopardising his defence.

“The leak was clearly designed to undermine my bail application,” he said. “Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison.” [emphasis mine] News.com.au

It is absolutely hysterical that Assange is the victim of the very thing he has been proud of doing. He published leaked information in an effort to embarrass the US and now he believes that leaked information about him was published in an effort to embarrass him and affect his hearing. He is whining about all this. Perhaps he should be in charge of Wikiweeps…

Isn’t it funny that this little man was so high and mighty when talking about releasing stolen documents and how he seems to revel in it but when it happens to him he becomes upset.

This is the absolute definition of irony and it could not have involved a more worthy piece of excrement.

Assange’s lawyers believe he was set up by the CIA with regard to the sex allegations.

Perhaps, but then again, maybe he is working with the Obama regime to manufacture a crisis in order to regulate some other aspect of our lives.

I wonder what that could be?

I wonder…

I know there has to be something for which they want to use a crisis to push through new rules.

Hmmm

Oh well, at least Assange is getting a taste of his own medicine and that is good. If anyone out there has any embarrassing and very private information that Assange is hiding now would be a good time to release it.

Turn about is, after all, fair play.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

36 Responses to “A Bit Of Irony From Julian Assange”

  1. Eoj Trahneir says:

    I am still in shock. Adam is a real person. Wow.

    On “proposed rules governing net neutrality—a concept aimed at preventing Internet providers from interfering with web traffic.” There is nothing in this that addresses web spamming, hacking and internet fraud, the only legitimate targets of government fingers in the internet pie. Government should only do for the people what the people can’t do for themselves, and as far as I know, it isn’t legal to bury hackers to the waist in sand and stone them. But it should be. I would be in favor of the FCC taking on this task.

    FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill (Obama’s Campaign) promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision that was under court review…FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet.

    Strange, but that name, “Julius Genachowski” doesn’t look Chinese! Isn’t this pretty much the same heavy-handed tactics the communists use?

    Adam, you seem to be an expert of that, maybe you would care to field this question?

    “An FCC source familiar with the negotiations said progress is being made in three key areas: addressing concerns about wireless carriers, limiting Internet toll lanes and adding protections for a new online pricing model.”

    Just change the “wireless carrier to “rail carrier, “Internet toll lanes” to “Toll Rail lane,” and “Online pricing” to “Rail freight chargers,” and by golly! It is the same formula the government used to strange the railroads!

    Adam, if you are real you can help me out; I have wanted to ask an “educated liberal” this question;

    It has been well documented that when it comes to voting for military funding- liberals would much rather spend money on social programs.

    My question is,
    Why would liberals rather appropriate money to social programs than to the defense of our country?

  2. Eoj Trahneir says:

    PS, I spell and write badly. What of it? English isn’t my first language. Not even my second. Suffer.

  3. Blake says:

    The “Net Neuttrality” act comes up for a vote today, and this will spell the end of freedom for the internet- and Julian Aussange has been doing his part to help this along.
    It would not surprise me to find that Bradley Manning was a fall guy- how else could a PRIVATE steal that much data unaided?
    I think some in the Government, possibly the military, and FCC aided and abetted this person, just so net neutrality could become another tool to control the populace.
    If the government (or World Bank, WTO, or any other of these orgs.) decides to shut you or me down, they will be able to do this without a warrant, or a hearing.
    Talk about curtailing your freedom of speech-

  4. Blake says:

    BTW- be ready for the next “crisis”- it is coming, and I am afraid that this one will be the clincher.

  5. Adam says:

    “Why would liberals rather appropriate money to social programs than to the defense of our country?”

    I can’t speak for all liberals but personally in a scenario where I’m choosing to increase the defense budget or increase certain entitlements I’m usually going to side with the entitlements. It’s not just entitlements either. I’d side against it for things like education as well. It’s all about resource allocation.

    I understand that the US already spends about three times as much on entitlements as defense but our defense budget is enormous all on it’s own and we outspend nearly the rest of the world combined.

    We can do both and do them well. Considering we are already great at defense I would much prefer to see a little more investment of my tax money into things like making education better and more affordable, funding social security, etc.

    “PS, I spell and write badly. What of it? English isn’t my first language. Not even my second. Suffer.”

    I wouldn’t mind it at all other than for the fact that you seem to have focused primarily on slurs and insults in your English language studies. I would rather see you make coherent arguments or ask questions more like you’re doing above than to simply continue with the verbal diarrhea that you’ve displayed in your short time on Big Dog’s site. But maybe the folks who author and comment on this site like what you’ve been up to…

    • Eoj Trahneir says:

      I am what’s called “entertainment.”
      But that is over.
      Unfortunately you are real. BD said so.

      Adam-thoughts, though I don’t like them, I have to treat them as something other than BD’s attempt at presenting “the other side of the story,” via a humorously idiotic foil personality.
      BD’s Dark Side, as I used to refer to it.

      On the slur/innuendo and out-right (or out-wrong!) insults I have passed on you over the past two short years, note;
      You began it.
      I blog by a few simple rules, and one is; never go to slurdom…first.

      You did.

      Ad Hominem attacks, I take it kinda personal.
      Like when local tribes men were taking pot-shots at me when I was in the Sudan (America isn’t the only member of the UN) One may miss, but the intent is there and I am not afraid to fire chain across your bow.

      Slow down sailor.

      You made the first move, and the gloves were off. I gave you a bloody nose every time.

      But that is all in the past. Darn. I will miss that.

      • Adam says:

        “You made the first move, and the gloves were off. I gave you a bloody nose every time.”

        Why am I picturing this only happening in your sad little imagination? I’d love to see an example of what you call a “bloody nose.”

        • Eoj Trahneir says:

          It’s just a figure of speech, kinda like when Obama says, “I have created a million jobs!”

          But see? You can’t stop making snide comments, even now. What happened to the long-haired peon, “Think peace into being?”
          Was The lead-man in the Pantheon of Liberal Gods wrong, when he sang, “Imagine/”? I think John Lennon had a sad big imagination; as long as one person acts war into being, there will be no peace, only nose-bleeds!

          I am a conservative; none expect me to be “nice.” We don’t preach openness and acceptance. That is your turf.

          Anyway, aside from that no-productive issue, I read your reply to the military vs social spending question.
          In your favor, it was well written and I understand you perfectly. On some points I agree, I do.
          Education I agree on, not more spend on it, but there are cost-free things that can be done that would result in a better education system. Primarily, that “no child left behind” absurdity should be scrapped. Bush’s legacy…yeah, he messed up bad, there.

          Teaching down to the least-productive child? I don’t see how aiming at average can raise the “peaks” of student achievement, and it is the peaks we need to nurture.
          Maybe NCLB isn’t?

          Which makes sense if one is a liberal. Try this reasoning;
          Approximately 10% of the population in the United States is poor, a condition strongly linked to “poorly educated.”
          About 30 million Americans, give or take.

          There are approximately one million Americans serving in the military. If only 1 in 5 of the poor/poorly educated vote, that equals about six million votes as compared to one million votes from the military.

          There are two relevant questions here. What percent of the poor vote Republican? How close was the 2000 Presidential Election? This leads directly to the answer of why liberals would rather appropriate money to social programs, especially one’s that produce a dumbed-down electorate, than to the defense of our country.

          Since I am talking statistics, with their inherent nature of being interpreted almost anyway one wants, I will boldly state that military does more than defend America; it defends the world. My country is defended by USA. Thank you very much. But the military is also a huge educator, with a much better rate of “successful graduates” than any other education system in the states, including all your Ivy League (liberal) Universities.

          You note that USA spends three times more on social programs than military. Yet the military, when not interfered with by liberal politics, is wildly successful and America’s social system sucks.

          Not a glowing endorsement of liberal policy, in my book. Is the solution to cut back on what works and increase what doesn’t?

        • Adam says:

          “It’s just a figure of speech…”

          Which to me says you can’t produce any example of you doing anything but cursing and attacking me. If you’ve posted here under other names then I’d love to know what they were. There’s been a lot of potty mouth folks like yourself here before.

          “This leads directly to the answer of why liberals would rather appropriate money to social programs, especially one’s that produce a dumbed-down electorate, than to the defense of our country.”

          So your suggestion then is that liberals support social spending over the military because we can win more poor voters than military voters? That is a very cynical view that needs more than a few fuzzy numbers to back up in my opinion. But if you’ve been thinking this through then I’d love to see you expand on your argument a little more.

          “Is the solution to cut back on what works and increase what doesn’t?”

          Again, I think it’s about resource allocation. It’s not like anyone is calling for gutting the military in order to boost entitlements. Defense spending is still going to stay strong and go up every budget no matter what liberals do. But perhaps we can someday consider the education level and job security of Americans to be as important to the health of the nation as is military readiness.

  6. Adam says:

    Big Dog: “Perhaps, but then again, maybe he is working with the Obama regime to manufacture a crisis in order to regulate some other aspect of our lives.”

    Blake: “I think some in the Government, possibly the military, and FCC aided and abetted this person, just so net neutrality could become another tool to control the populace.”

    This makes sense only if you’ve bought into the lie that the Obama is using net neutrality to “take over the Internet.” It’s a silly argument. Of course this argument runs contrary to the views of folks like the Open Internet Coalition which is made up of the biggest players on the Internet. But really now, what do they know that Glenn Beck doesn’t? They’re all socialists and liars and Glenn Beck would never lie.

    • Blake says:

      Oh God, I hate to say it, but this is truly the “camel’s nose under the tent”- all of this sounds benign, but so did the constraints against the Jews in the ’30s-
      NEVER TRUST GOVERNMENT- especially a socialist one, because their idea of government never gets smaller, and an individual’s liberties NEVER grow, only shrink.

    • Blake says:

      The silly argument is that a lowly private was able to access ALL of these files, and get away with it, unaided or abetted- even Helen Keller could have seen there was something not right, here.

      • Blake says:

        And yes- I believe there is a load of traitors that work in our government today- and I believe that they, if found and convicted, should be punished by death- the ultimate time-out.

        • Adam says:

          I still don’t see why death is considered the ultimate anything. I doubt people who think that have spent much time with anyone who has been in prison. I’d much rather subject our worst offenders to the hell that is life without parole not only because it’s a much greater punishment but it also leaves room for appeal and advancements in science that may someday acquit a person.

          In the case of outright traitors to the country I feel the same way. They don’t deserve to die. They can just spend a great deal of time being away from all the amazing things the country they betrayed can offer her people.

  7. Big Dog says:

    We already spend a fortune per child on education in this country. Throwing money at these problems does not fix them. We have spent 12 trillion dollars on the war on poverty and the same percentage of the population is poor as when we started. We have spent a boat load of money on education and still have below average results.

    Private school education spends less per student but gets better results, why is that?

    Perhaps the teacher’s unions have built a system where the number one goal is to take care of teachers at the expense of the children. There are too many administrators and not enough teachers. We also have to find a way to get rid of the bad teachers.

    Money is not the answer to education. We spend quite a bit on children and it is not working.

    • Blake says:

      When it comes to education, we have the most retarded system of education in the world, and we throw money at it, thinking that money will make the TEACHER’S job easier, and result in smarter students.
      The TRUTH is that until we reward teachers on merit ALONE, and never grant tenure to ANYONE (except the janitor, who does the best job of them all), the students we graduate will ALWAYS BE MARGINAL, AT BEST-
      Oh yeah, there will be a few that excel, but these few would have excelled in a vacuum.
      The rest will have become as the socialist elite want them to be- just smart enough to be led by whatever liberal asshat will give them their candy.

    • Adam says:

      What about then making it easier for Americans to go to school? More and bigger pell grants, better loan forgiveness programs for public service, etc. One of many things I disagreed with Bush over was his talk about creating high-tech and better paying jobs but then not creating mechanisms to educate or re-train Americans for these jobs.

      • Big Dog says:

        How about you pay for your own education or get a scholarship based on ability?

        How about stopping affirmative action?

        How about personal responsibility?

        If a college or some philanthropist wants to pay for college education for people who can’t afford it, fine. But why should taxpayers, many of whom struggle to send their own kids to college, pay for the education of someone else’s kid?

        • Adam says:

          “But why should taxpayers, many of whom struggle to send their own kids to college, pay for the education of someone else’s kid?”

          You’re thinking about it from the wrong angle. We’re all paying taxes anyway for all different things, many of which we disagree with or would never fund if we had a choice. Some our tax dollars could go toward increasing pell grants for instance. The pell grant program is already good and could be made better.

          Personal responsibility is nice in theory but you’re asking children to be completely subject to their parents decisions and economic conditions. Things like pell grants can put the ball back in their court and give them better opportunities to achieve more in life that education provides.

          My only point is that when it comes to increasing funding for education nobody is simply saying throw money at it. There are smart things we can do at both the K-12 level and with college.

  8. Big Dog says:

    I have no problem with the death penalty for someone who is absolutely guilty without any doubt. The guy is caught on video shooting a person or he admits to it or whatever, so long as it is without a doubt.

    I also have no problem with life without parole especially for people that there might be a doubt about. However, WITHOUT PAROLE must mean just that.

    They can NEVER be released because a prison is overcrowded or any other reason. They MUST be locked up until they die.

    • Adam says:

      “…so long as it is without a doubt.”

      My problem is that already most juries won’t put people to death if there are doubts but yet almost every year we see people on death row that get acquitted. My faith in “without a doubt” is very weak at this point.

      “They can NEVER be released because a prison is overcrowded or any other reason. They MUST be locked up until they die.”

      Our prison system is a wreck, indeed.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Well you are talking about two different monsters here. The money being thrown around is for the K-12 system of public schools. As for college, that is a different thing all together.

    However, there are plenty of ways for kids to pay for college. They can join the military and use the GI Bill which they would earn as part of their service. How about making Pell Grants Pell Contracts that require service to pay off?

    Just because we pay taxes “anyway” for things we do not like does not mean we should add more things to the tab.

    • Adam says:

      “Just because we pay taxes ‘anyway’ for things we do not like does not mean we should add more things to the tab.”

      Am I going to yell that I shouldn’t have to pay pennies of my tax dollars to help others go to school? It’s not like I’m dropping the cost of a year of college with those taxes.

      “How about making Pell Grants Pell Contracts that require service to pay off?”

      I’d be OK with that perhaps if they were larger chunks of money. I much prefer pell grants to be free and that student loans be the thing you can forgive with service.

      I can’t speak for most recipients of pell grants since so many people drop out of school. In my case though I paid more in income taxes the first year out of college than I received in pell grants my entire college career and now I’ve been out of school for nearly 5 years. In my case it was a good investment of our tax dollars. That’s why I support the program so much.

      “However, there are plenty of ways for kids to pay for college.”

      There are several ways but I wouldn’t say plenty of ways.

      • Big Dog says:

        Well the first would be to get a job and work your way through school. That is what I did.

        Or one could join the service and use the GI Bill (I did not use the GI Bill).

        One could get a loan and pay it off. One could pay back Pell Grants with service.

        Regardless, if you drop out you should be required to pay it all back.

        I do not see it as society’s responsibility to pay for a person’s college education.

        • Adam says:

          “I do not see it as society’s responsibility to pay for a person’s college education.”

          I’m of the mind that a better educated population is better for our country and I have no problem with my tax dollars going to programs that encourage and aid Americans in going to college.

  10. Big Dog says:

    So maybe there should be a checkoff box on your taxes and if you want to contribute then you can add a few dollars.

    Of course a better educated population is better for society but the Democrats have kept people in ignorance for decades so they can have voters.

  11. This is not ironic at all, actually. Julian Assange is a hero who has exposed the eeevil workings of AmeriKKKa. He should be admired, applauded and exempt from any criticism.

    The real irony is that the whole Swedish campaign against him is a honey trap masterminded by the CIA but you’re not angry about that. Your country is always working against you, and you think that you live in a democracy.

    Really, this is like 911 all over again. You are too afraid to admit the truth, which is that Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with the attack on the Twin Towers. Like Lee Harvey Oswald before him, Osama was just the patsy!

    I pity you. I really do.

    • Big Dog says:

      After reading this mindless prattle, it is we who should pity you…

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        Even I agree with Adam for once. Holy Cow.

        Adam, you don’t see any illogical reasoning in keeping a prisoner in jail for life as “punishment,” rather than a swift bullet in the head? Isn’t your scenario, for the reasons you state, cruel and unusual? And hence, against the constitution?

        But I have a better reason you of all people, should be FOR the death penalty;
        What is the cost of incarceration now-a-daze? Y, $35,000 per inmate? $45,000? You seem to be able to pull numbers from your…head. You must know the cost to keep an offender in jail for a year. And can you do compound interest, also? Plus the cost of appeals, and re-arrests for when they get release in spite of a “life in jail” conviction.

        Now consider, if that money was used in education. To teach kids values. Ethics. Morals. Holy cow, look at Simpleton Saffire up there; I doubt he knows what a moral is! If an ethic bit him in the butt, he would be digging for the whoopie-cream, asking, Charlie? Is that you??

        There has yet to be a case where a person was given the death penalty and later found to be innocent. However liberals say there is one, so I give them that one. Adam, can you come up with the name of that one, the one false conviction?

        Well, I didn’t think so. After going through America’s legal system, with all the chances they have to prove innocence or inability to prove beyond a doubt…those in jail are all guilty. Every one of them. That is what “guilty” means.

        On the other hand, there are thousands of documented cases of convicted violent criminals that were given numerous chances and then murdered innocent women and children.

        A liberal stance, “innocent babies deserve to die, repeat offenders deserve a chance! Vote for us!”

  12. Eoj Trahneir says:

    “I’m of the mind that a better educated population is better for our country”

    unless they have the same education as you, Adam. You aren’t exactly a poster-boy for “education being a good thing!”

    • Adam says:

      I don’t know if you’ll see this since it’s so far from the front of the blog, but here goes anyway:

      “What is the cost of incarceration now-a-daze?”

      We wouldn’t have to worry about the cost of incarcerating violent offenders for life if the US would stop incarcerating so many non-violent offenders.

      “Adam, can you come up with the name of that one, the one false conviction?”

      I don’t know that I can give a name. I just know that every year in the US people are removed from death row after having found evidence that either exonerates that person or casts enough doubt as to no longer justify their death sentence.

      “Adam. You aren’t exactly a poster-boy for ‘education being a good thing!'”

      No, my education didn’t teach me to despise liberalism and buy into all the lunacy that is right-wing America. Perhaps if it had you wouldn’t have to waste so much time running around on here trying to insult me from abroad . I am truly sorry for that.

      • Big Dog says:

        But it wasn’t a good education because you espouse liberalism and call the right wing “lunacy.”

        Most evidence casts doubt but I do not recall seeing exoneration. The person likely still did it.

        When there is no doubt then I have no problem with the death penalty.

  13. Big Dog says:

    And Adam, quit being sexist claiming he is insulting you from a broad…