Wikileaks founder wanted for rape, on the run

You don't fuck with Uncle Sam and get away with it

0/10

>>2
Sageing the first thread on the first page? Do you even know what sage is for?!

>>3
SAGE MY ANUS

>>1
Just another smear campaign. The few who profit off of the military-industrial complex don't like little tidbits of truth getting out to the public until long after the fake war is "over".

The state department is obviously pressuring the Swedish authorities to turn him in on trumped up charges. Defamation of character is one of many political attacks used.

>>5
I fully agree with you. They're using every trick in the book  to shut down Wikileaks to prevent them from revealing that Obama is not an American citizen and a muslim.

Obama is a fucking stalinist tyrant, this obvious smear campaign out of fear of being revealed to be a manchurian candidate is his machination.

The arrest is dropped

>>6
I don't know about all that, but Obama is a puppet, his masters are the ones who really control the show.

stalinist
Another on here said he was Maoist, which is it? Nah, he's more like Mussolini, who opined that fascism should really be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. The government owns parts of AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, GMAC, Chrysler, etc. The humongous health care bill was a big win for the corporations. If he was truly perusing communistic goals, he'd probably completely eliminate these entities and have all the means of production handed over to the state. One thing they do have in common is greatly enhanced centralized Federal power, and that's scary no matter who's in the puppet position.

>>9
So, wait, you're saying that finally, after all these years, there may at last be a valid reason to call someone a fascist without invoking hyperbole?
Awesome.

>>9
What's wrong with government owned corporations? As a canadafag our crown corporations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada) don't seem to be doing to bad.

>>10
Yes, I guess so.

>>11
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, as "Crown Corporations" as I've read in the Wikipedia article you linked to are historically linked to the systems descended from the UK's monarchical, parliamentary form of governance, perhaps with different charters and rules and laws to abide by, that most likely differ from the government owned corporations here. We probably have had actual Crown Corporations during the colonial era before the foundation of the now United States and the revolutionary break away from the British Crown. Not to mention that the form of government in the US is (or is suppose to be) a federal constitutional republic, and is not parliamentary, nor do we recognize Elizabeth II as our Queen (conspiracy theories notwithstanding).

Of course we do have government owned corporations which are similar, though before this "great merger", they were often the creation of the government. Some were former departments, like the Post Office Department, which is now an "independent" corporation (though it was created via an act of the Federal government). Another is the hybrid private-public National Railroad Passenger Corporation, which is more commonly known here as "Amtrak", which is a nationally run system of rails and passenger cars. I'm sure Canada has something similar.

Now, I may have arguments on those things in principle, however, the merger of state and corporate power that I was alluding to before is formerly independent companies and corporations that are now either partially owned, or completely owned, and I've mentioned some of their names in >>9.