Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban'

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the name-calling dept.

The Military 1425

DMandPenfold writes "Sarah Palin, who is widely tipped as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda." So that means we should spend billions of dollars and not catch him? Good plan.

cancel ×

1425 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first! (-1, Offtopic)

RockoTDF (1042780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406274)

First post!

Re:first! (5, Funny)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406452)

This discussion is about Sarah Palin. I think you meant to say "fence post."

Re:first! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406482)

Great, I'm happy for you. Now you will pay with your karma. Git him, mods!

I'd say... (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406502)

...we should hunt down Sarah Palin, but I can't face the idea of actually catching her. It would take months of showering with caustic agents to get the stupid off. The woman is the perfect storm of all that is wrong with America's dumbest citizens today. And I'm sure that our north Korean allies on the death panels would not refudiate this.

Zing? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406300)

Thanks for your cutting edge, witty commentary.

Why do we keep talking about her? (5, Interesting)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406318)

She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her? She has to be the most hated political figure in the US for the left/left leaning middle. The dumbest thing the republicans could possibly do is run her in 2012.

I said the same thing about Barak Obama in 2006 (4, Interesting)

wernox1987 (1362105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406358)

And then I voted for him in 2008.....things change. Still, I agree, she's pretty much unelectable in my mind.

Re:I said the same thing about Barak Obama in 2006 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406604)

But did you say the same thing about Obama because he was painfully 'tarded?

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit135 (1947022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406362)

who is "we"?

you are NOTHING

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406498)

who is "we"?

you are NOTHING

/me laughs

Dude, seriously, you're hilarious. Ooo! Ooo! I know! Am I NOOOOOTHIIIIING now because I'm an anon? Or NOOOOOOOTHIIIIIIIIING because I disagree with you? Maybe my NOOOOTHIIIINGness hurts your fragile basement-dwelling worldview? La la la la I can't hear you because you're nooooooooooothiiiiiiiiiiingz0rz!

Hee hee! Keep up the good work, Kristopeit!

Signed,
More NOTHING!!!!1!

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406530)

Wait, wait, that was not the real kristopeit, he did not insult your mom's face! It's an imposter!

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406662)

Isn't it obvious? Your mom's face is NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING!!!1!

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (5, Insightful)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406364)

She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her? She has to be the most hated political figure in the US for the left/left leaning middle. The dumbest thing the republicans could possibly do is run her in 2012.

What she and her supporters have not figured out is that they get so much attention because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's entertainment not politics.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (5, Interesting)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406512)

It's entertainment not politics.

There's a difference?

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (4, Interesting)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406672)

Nope. Bread and circuses [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (5, Funny)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406674)

It's entertainment not politics.

There's a difference?

Yeah. Entertainment is funny.

I Disagree with Your Assessment (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406566)

What she and her supporters have not figured out is that they get so much attention because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's entertainment not politics.

Well, to her credit, she has a lot of followers. Despite many faux pas she's made that would have left anyone else gelded, she somehow keeps drumming up support. I'm not too educated on the numbers now for tea partiers versus non-tea partying Republicans but I think it would be a deathly schism for the Republican party. The two large parties can't afford to break off into chunks and therefore it's going to be the most supported candidate that gets the nod. Right now, who else is there?

There have been countless stupid quotes and moves by Sarah Palin where I've thought "Wow, well, at least she's finally done for." And yet she comes out of it. She starts working for Fox News and injects her own little two cents into everything and I'm thinking, "Look at all this material for a potential opponent to use against her." Yet she grows in popularity! She gets a reality show on some cable TV show called "Sarah Palin's Alaska" (like she owns the state) and I think "Well, finally, she's jumping the shark." Yet people are watching it in respectable TV viewing numbers! She releases a book that rips apart JFK and yet somehow she comes out still being followed. What gives?

In my humble opinion, as someone coming from the rural mid-west and now living in the urban east coast, you are talking about a populace you don't understand. People are watching her, reading her books and identifying with her at an alarming rate. To claim that everyone one of her supporters is driving from Ohio and other states to see her and Glenn Beck on the mall just to 'observe a train wreck' only exacerbates the problem and further removes you from what's really going on. America is just as polarized as they were during the elections and the Republican party -- though strong -- is encountering a weird kind of fragmentation for better or for worse.

Politics is entertainment just like sports are entertainment. But most spectators are cheering for someone.

It's easy for us to dismiss them but that only adds to their persecution complex. I don't know what the answer is but I prefer to listen to them and then try to reason with them instead of writing them off. There's bigger numbers in different parts of the country and I'm not a fan of watching Glenn Beck prey on people who are suffering right now. It downright sickens me.

Re:I Disagree with Your Assessment (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406664)

People are watching her, reading her books and identifying with her at an alarming rate.

It's the same down South. As a matter of fact, back in 2008, someone wrote to the editor of the Economist saying how they liked Sarah because "she is just like me."

To write Palin off as a "nut" or as "unelectable" would be a mistake. I see a lot of Democrats hoping that Palin runs in '12 - they should be careful of what they wish for.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (2)

Imawesome (1928564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406658)

It is essentially Jersey Shore for politics. I would imagine her whole 'bid' to run in 2012 is just a way to stay in the spotlight as long as possible and shore up her's and her daughter's semi-celebrity status long enough to get set for life on book sales, speech appearances, etc. She is living the WT dream!

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406370)

might as well add middle and right leaning middle as well. Only the ultra-right seem to like her, and even then only some, the rest seem to like her only when compared to someone on the left.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406372)

why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her?

Because she is even more hilarious than when Tina Fey makes fun of her.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (3, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406400)

I think people keep talking about her as proof that they aren't lying when they tell their kids they be anything when the grow up.

Because we want the Republicans to lose? (3, Interesting)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406402)

Keep her in the spotlight. I'd prefer having 4 more years of Obama, instead of any Republican "small government" type.

Re:Because we want the Republicans to lose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406436)

Hear here!

Re:Because we want the Republicans to lose? (0)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406450)

Exactly! The left leaning media strikes again. Except for fox. I think they keep talking about her just because they want viewers.

Re:Because we want the Republicans to lose? (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406492)

I pretty much don't give a damn about politics, it won't matter who I vote for. Who ever gets elected immediately does an about face from their campaign platform and keeps going on with business as usual. I'm almost certain elections are just about giving the people the illusion of choice, when it comes to how their governments are run.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (1, Interesting)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406416)

She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her? She has to be the most hated political figure in the US for the left/left leaning middle. The dumbest thing the republicans could possibly do is run her in 2012.

You made your own point. Almost everyone from the right and left agrees she is un-electable. However there is still a bitter minority clinging to her as the next great hope for a "tea-party takeover" of government's highest office. In essence, she is the new Ron Paul. He got a lot of worthless attention, why shouldn't she?

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406516)

Ron Paul is worthless?

He's anti-war.
Anti-global US empire.
Anti-US acting as world's policeman.
And pro-balance the budget and pay off the enormous debt.

I'd like to clone him about 435 times and let them run the Congress.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (5, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406548)

Ron Paul is worthless?

In the sense that what he wants has roughly zero bearing on what Congress actually does, yeah.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406628)

Ron Paul is worthless?

He's anti-war.
Anti-global US empire.
Anti-US acting as world's policeman.
And pro-balance the budget and pay off the enormous debt.

I'd like to clone him about 435 times and let them run the Congress.

Lots of people are those things. That doesn't make them electable. Being able to appeal to a majority of Americans, and follow through on promises with actions is what appeals to (or appalls, depending on the headwinds) the electorate. Ron Paul, a smart, selfless man may he be, is simply un-electable.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406524)

Because Ron Paul wants to legalize it.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406514)

She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her?

She's unelectable specifically because they keep her stupidity in the news. If she doesn't know her role she's going to be sad one day when she finds out. I'm pretty sure she does, though.

The dumbest thing the republicans could possibly do is run her in 2012.

If they do, then you will know their role is to throw another election via an unelectable ticket, which is what they did in the last election.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406544)

You just answered your own question. Palin causes an emotional reaction. People recognize her and will gravitate toward loving or hating her. Both are good for her political career and for the media covering her.

Not Just Hateb by the Left (2, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406560)

I voted for Bush in 2004. I would have voted for him in 2000 if I was old enough. Voted for McCain in 2008. Never voted Democrat in my life. But if the Republicans nominate Palin in 2012, I will vote Obama. I don't like what he's doing to this country. He's given way too much power to unions (GM) and unfairly redistributing wealth (healthcare). But the damage he can do is minuscule when compared to what Palin would do. There is only one possible benefit I can see of Palin getting elected, and the is the complete dismantlement of the Republican party as we know it. Maybe we can finally get a party that is center-right, instead of overrun with right-wing radicals and religious nutjobs.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406580)

I once thought some guy from Texas born with a silver foot in his mouth, who had basically relied on daddy's friends and connections his entire adult life, would have been equally unelectable. I was disastrously wrong.

You were attracted to news about her ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406632)

She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her?

Because like her or not, people are attracted to news stories about her. Therefore she generates readers/viewers and in turn revenue. You yourself were attracted to a story about her.

To answer your question: even if unelectable she will be able to steer the debate, force certain topics to be discussed. Many an unelectable candidate thought such influence justified their campaign. Also, with enough followers she may be able to influence viable candidates, basically act as a "king maker".

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406638)

Precisely. I hope she is the republican presidential candidate. It would mean there's no way we'll have a republican in the seat the next go around. I know, I know... they're pretty much all the same, but at least if the choice is between a democrat and any of the 3rd parties or independents, the 3rd party or independent would stand a better chance.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (1)

GeorgeMonroy (784609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406652)

Whether she is unelectable is debatable. What is not debatable is that she is quite delectable.

Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (2)

fahlesr1 (1910982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406690)

I lost all respect for her when she quit the governorship of Alaska.

Political beliefs aside, if she can't finish out her term as governor why should I think she can handle a full term as president?

Hunt Assange like Al Qaeda? (5, Funny)

draggy (30660) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406320)

After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!

billions ? (3, Funny)

polar red (215081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406322)

Trillions! and thousands of civilian deaths.

Re:billions ? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406382)

Trillions! and thousands of civilian deaths.

You make that sound like a bad thing. Cheney and Haliburton would not agree.

Martyrdom (2, Insightful)

Nailer235 (1822054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406324)

Right or wrong, if you kill him becomes a martyr. What a surprise that Sarah Palin didn't think before she spoke.

Re:Martyrdom (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406374)

She never does. And neither do those Tea Party idiots for that matter. But then again, what can you expect? I mean they did name themselves after an event that had nothing to do with taxation. The only reason anybody in the media talks about her is that people think she's pretty. Other than that, she's just like all the other whack jobs on the right that comment on things they don't understand.

Re:Martyrdom (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406506)

Right or wrong, if you kill him becomes a martyr.

Right. That's why you have to go all Abu Ghraib on him first. People are eager to die for a cause but fewer are eager to be in a jail being humiliated and tormented by rednecks.

Disclaimer: I don't actually think this is what she meant, though.

Re:Martyrdom (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406608)

Wasn't he recently arrested?
Is there really a need to hunt down? Did I miss some news about him going off the grid at some point?

Re:Martyrdom (5, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406642)

She speaks to the mob. She tells the mob what it wants to hear, rather than what needs saying. This will get her a big following, but it doesn't mean a good mob leader is capable of much beyond causing noise and damage. On the other hand I wonder how much this differs from many people involved in politics?

Sarah Palin... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406332)

You know who we have to blame for her, right?

John McCain. What the heck was the man thinking? If he'd picked his VP candidate with an eye to win, instead of just throwing a dart then we'd be far better off. Even though I wouldn't have wanted his hypocritical, principal betraying, lying ass in the Oval Office, at least with a decent VP we'd not have had the horror that is Sarah Palin inflicted on the nation at large. She'd just be some obscure Alaska Governor waiting for the snows to come in and counting all the oil money.

Curse you!

Re:Sarah Palin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406640)

John McCain. What the heck was the man thinking? If he'd picked ... a decent VP we'd not have had the horror that is Sarah Palin inflicted on the nation at large.

You seem to have answered your own question there, although it may not have been him doing the thinking. Don't assume nobody put much thought into her promotion.

Re:Sarah Palin... (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406644)

McCain didn't choose her. Once they realized that the election was almost unwinnable, the Republicans picked her to finish throwing the election while at the same time gathering massive media attention.

Chomsky on pentagon papers, wikileaks and palin (5, Informative)

DeadlyBattleRobot (130509) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406336)

Very good interview done within the last few days. Why can't we have this guy running the country, not the bozo teams we get over and over?

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound [democracynow.org]

Re:Chomsky on pentagon papers, wikileaks and palin (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406536)

The quote in that article is simple wrong. A majority of Arab leaders are concerned about Iran, very concerned and the US has clearly taken the position of moderating and keeping things calm. The wikileaks shows the US does a lot to support democracy.

Sheesh.

Re:Chomsky on pentagon papers, wikileaks and palin (-1, Troll)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406590)

Why can't we have this guy running the country, not the bozo teams we get over and over?
B/c he's crazy.

Kill the messanger.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406340)

But if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide? Right? Right??? That's what the government keeps telling me!

Re:Kill the messanger.... (2)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406510)

"Yes, you, the plebs, the common folk, aren't allowed to have something to be hidden. We, the elite, we got plenty to hide!" Gotta love the ambiguity of 'you'.

Palin against government transparency? (3, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406342)

Palin just lost my vote. I liked her because she managed to balance the budget in Alaska and is supposedly a supporter of the Constitution. With her support of trying to take down wikileaks, it indicates she is actually a supporter of ongoing government waste and corruption.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people should be completely transparent. Every dime should be able to be accounted for, and all bills before Congress should be made publicly available before they are voted on - not hidden the way Romney/Obamacare was.

Re:Palin against government transparency? (5, Insightful)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406442)

Palin just lost my vote.

Seriously? *This* is what did it for you?

Re:Palin against government transparency? (2, Informative)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406542)

Palin just lost my vote. I liked her because she managed to balance the budget in Alaska and is supposedly a supporter of the Constitution.

You get that Alaska's budget is balanced thanks to huge oil revenues and a small population and given that the state needs to GIVE the money away just to not appear too self-interested that her "work" as governor has NOTHING to do with it, right? Her constitutional rhetoric is similarly disappointing.

Re:Palin against government transparency? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406588)

The health care has a clear method of accountability for all funds. Nothing is hidden. Stop repeating other peoples lies and read the damn thing.

Of course, if THIS is what it took to get you to not Vote for her, then you stopped thinking long ago.

TO be Clear: that was an Attack at YOU and Palin. Not an attack on pubs.

Re:Palin against government transparency? (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406626)

and is supposedly a supporter of the Constitution.

Just like everyone else who loves the Constitution, until following it would mean doing something you don't like.

Re:Palin against government transparency? (5, Interesting)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406676)

Alaska balances their budget by taking more federal dollars than the other states. They are the number one recipient of federal pork.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/business/19stimulus.html [nytimes.com]

Plus, she is only a supporter of the Constitution when it's the parts of the Constitution she likes.

wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406348)

FAILmerican retardation at it's finest.

And you're worried that the leaks might make the world have a bad impression about you?

So much stupidity for a "developed country".

So what (5, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406354)

Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news, for anybody.

Re:So what (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406478)

Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news, for anybody.

Oh, but it is entertainment. Watching smug retards make fools of themselves is always funny, especially when they don't even realize, we are not laughing with them, we are laughing at them. If she stood any chance of being elected to any public office anywhere, she would be scary rather than funny, but as it is, she is just hilarious.

Death, huh? (3, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406368)

The Taliban is responsible, directly and demonstrably, for a great many deaths, both in the US and abroad.

The number of deaths that can be traced to Assange is... how many? How indirectly?

If he is in fact guilty of the actual physical crimes of which he's accused, he should be pursued and prosecuted proportionally to them. But when you equate "taking America down a peg" with mass murder... it makes you realize why Assange is doing what he's doing.

It feels as if America has lost its glory, pursuing its reputation like a bully. I think we're still better than that. But the last election didn't tell me so as clearly as I'd like, and the next election may explicitly contradict me.

Land of the Free Indeed (4, Insightful)

masdog (794316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406378)

Nothing says "land of the free, home of the brave" than a quitter comparing a journalistic outfit that leaks embarassing data that the US and others don't want to be revealed to a theocratic government that opposes most fundamental freedoms. And yet, her base will eat this up.

Re:Land of the Free Indeed (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406654)

Nothing says "land of the free, home of the brave" than a quitter comparing a journalistic outfit that leaks embarassing data that the US and others don't want to be revealed to a theocratic government that opposes most fundamental freedoms. And yet, her base will eat this up.
How about a bloviating congress critter from Florida comparing his opponent to that same theocratic govt. In guess you missed it, Taliban is now just short hand for evil and does shit I don't like.

This is a good thing (2)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406380)

This is the best thing we could do. It means that the governments will attack unrelated targets, and Wikileaks will remain unscathed. He will be safe to do as he pleased and post other materials. Now if he Palin were going after him like he was Obama, then there might be some worry. But even then she would probably endorse some wako for the job who be so distracted with the Aqua Buddha, or who was doing what in the privacy of their own home, or would mistakenly travel to Sweden instead of Switzerland, or not realize that US laws did not apply in Europe.

Is there any reason for this article? (4, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406396)

Sarah Palin's commentary on anything deeper than an Alaskan salmon stream is wasted air. She is not a political mind worthy of quoting. I'd be more interested in Britney Spears commentary on the escalating North Korea situation since we might at least get some good cleavage pics.

Re:Is there any reason for this article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406650)

You underestimate the capacity of the American electorate to eat up
populist crap and put it in office. I'd lay 25% odds that Palin will be
a US President at some point in the next 20 years.

Who says the US isn't already hunting him? (1)

PFactor (135319) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406398)

I bet there's a decent percentage of people-power being thrown at finding the guy and bringing him to a US-friendly court in a way that doesn't make it look like a CIA snatch-and-grab.

Re:Who says the US isn't already hunting him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406554)

and being thrown at Plan B, which may involve foreseeing any 'accidents' he may be at risk of having in the future.

Re:Who says the US isn't already hunting him? (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406584)

Also, he has announced that his next target is the banks. I'm thinking that will raise the hysteria level a bit.

This Is NOT News For Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406410)

Taco, you should be ashamed for posting this obviouls flamebait article to drum up the clicks and flamewars.

Sarah Palin isn't a politician currently, and her opinion on this issue does not matter. So why even post this here?

Obviously, you want to continue to get the pagehits goings, but its obvious there is no value or substance that should be on this site.

Re:This Is NOT News For Nerds (1)

jwegman (228147) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406618)

Absolutely! This is in no way, shape or form news. It's tabloid trash!

The problem with both parties ... (5, Insightful)

Syncerus (213609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406412)

The problem with both parties is that we can't keep the dumbest 2% of us off the television.

Why the hating on Assange? (4, Insightful)

cdombroski (1075539) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406420)

I haven't figured out all the blame is trying to focus on Wikileaks/Assange. To the point where people are being polled on if Assange should be charged with treason. I'm almost certain you need to be a US citizen before you can be charged with treason against the US.... Further, Assange didn't sign any agreements with the US gov't that he wouldn't release their information, that was the original informant. The information isn't (or shouldn't be) copyrighted, so the only thing to prevent anyone from distributing it is signing what is essentially an NDA.

Re:Why the hating on Assange? (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406666)

Yes, yes, but now they've charged him with SEXUAL crimes, you see, so none of that matters. Once tarred with the SEXUAL brush, one is pretty well finished as a public figure in society, because people get really, really stupid when the word sex is brought up. So don't worry about the treason thing. They're beyond that already. He must be brought to (cough) "justice" FOR THE CHILDREN!

Sarah Palin ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406422)

Why do you hate freedom so much? Is fascism and secret policies really what you want for us?

Go ahead, bitch, refudiate [urbandictionary.com] me.

Obfuscation. (2)

stcdm33 (1942322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406456)

The layer of obfuscation sickens me. Media controls so many people and they are so busy debating on non-topics that the real issues are never even touched. Put a new target on TV and tell people they are bad. Masses buy into it and then the population is directed how they want. This place is ripe for revolution. Nothing today seems to be the way the founding fathers intended. I think they'd be very upset with the state of things.

Julian Assange should be hunted down (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406466)

Sarah Palin, who is widely tipped as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

But luckily, Julian Assange watched her reality show, and decided to keep his hairy ass out of Alaska . . .

Hell, I can't really remember . . . are the tactical shotguns for shooting bears or salmon . . . I guess it don't matter . . .

Slashdot: (1)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406470)

Still giving a fuck what a borderline moron has to say.

She was already nearly elected Vice-President (4, Insightful)

wordsnyc (956034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406472)

Remember? And the Tea Party dipshits hadn't even gotten started then. If you don't think this clown is electable, you haven't spent enough time in the flyover states.

Dear Sarah Palin: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406476)

Please enjoy the upcoming Wikileaks of YOUR CABLES to Huckabee !

Slut !

Yours In Novosibirsk,
Kilgore T.

We might get a tad pissed off (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406484)

if the US were to send armed forces roaming our countryside looking for him.. Not to mention the great success the US have had in capturing Bin Ladin (or did you just give up on him, I can't recall)

Interpol alert rescinded? (2, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406520)

I just saw a headline teaser on the TV that suggested that the Interpol alert on Assange has been lifted. Perhaps someone at Interpol was finally clued in that Assange was not the sort of person they are supposed to be looking for?

You betcha (3, Funny)

SoundGuyNoise (864550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406546)

I hereby propose, that just like in all her public speaking events, any and all quotes from Sarah Palin must be appended with a winking smiley

;)

Correction: a winkin' smiley

The part that gets me... (4, Insightful)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406564)

Does anyone -seriously- think that if Assange were locked up / killed / whatever, that this sort of thing would stop?

While he's more than "just a public face" in this issue, it isn't like Wikileaks would die with him, or that some successor wouldn't be spawned.

ignore (1)

vossman77 (300689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406582)

Why do we give this person a platform to speak? We should just all ignore her and move on.

Go after Palin... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406586)

Maybe Sweden and other countries where WIkileaks have a presence should pre-emptively "target" Palin for threatening the invasion on their countries by US forces. She's CLEARLY a terrorist, no?

Let's phrase it like this.. (1)

Keruo (771880) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406592)

Sarah Palin [sky.com] assumes communist regime is US ally. If you vote for Palin and republicans, you're voting for communists!

She wants him hunted down.. (2)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406596)

... like a moose

Copy and Paste (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406598)

I hope for your sake America, that the biting analysis and smart analogies I've read here is replicated in your national newspapers for the masses to digest.

Who To Invade? (2)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406600)

>"Sarah Palin ... has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."

So does this mean the US is going to invade Venezuela?

Learn to pray .. (2)

roguegramma (982660) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406610)

The funny thing is, if Palin should ever become a president or not, vice or no vice, I'll definitely look into learning to pray. I guess Palin would approve ..

Any Discussion that Includes Sarah Palin... (1)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406622)

should just be labeled "flame bait".
.
.
.
.
Is it ratings time again already?

Free country? (5, Insightful)

MstrFool (127346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406636)

You know, it's things like that that tend to set me off. Open information is essential to freedom, and the US found it quite delightful when WL exposed other countries. But now that it's coming to light that our own country has a lot to hide, it must be stopped? I don't think so. Get the information out there, shame the ones knowingly acting dishonestly and work to let them know it is not acceptable. People in power are always willing to bend the rules for what they feel is 'good reason'. Problem is, that so called good reason tends to expand quickly. I don't know what the fix is for the situation, but I do know that it will involve a lot more sites like WL. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Or so the government tells us. Interesting how that doesn't seem to go both ways, that needs to change, in a big way.

As if... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406680)

I continue to wonder who still takes Sara Palin seriously. She's a painted up china doll paraded in the face of the American public in hopes that the sheeple will look at her while the puppeteers are busy further ruining our democracy.

At least... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34406686)

...this one is not fake. People have actually seen him on the street.

On the other site: WTF is wrong with you, USA people? Targeting a man just because he released some documents showing how bad mouthing everyone in the world is with each other? I bet you can do better with the resources you'd put into that.

Cheers!

She may be unelectable... (5, Informative)

nebaz (453974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34406692)

But there are those that are in power (already elected) who feel the same way. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wants to classify wikileaks as a terrorist organization. [thehill.com] . I believe that this would make contributing money a federal felony. In addition, the Interpol connection has been ratcheted up. Assange is now on the most wanted list. [washingtonpost.com]

It's not just Sarah Palin, there are those in power that are clearly using their power on this matter. Kind of scary, actually. (Though not surprising, considering what Assange is doing).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>