Way offtopic now but out of curiosity: No expert on Chomsky or Cambodian Genocide I looked it up on wikipedia and it appears you are right he did do that back in 1975-79, well done a verifiable fact and I am happy to agree with you on that one. As for your other claim all I did was go to the ultimate source and posted the actual short quote, the one which you claimed proved Chomsky was a Holocaust denier. The quote does not appear to support your claim in any way, and you did not follow up with counter evidence or admit your mistake. Worse your still persisting (Card stacking, you call it?). You should try admitting when you are wrong now and then would go a long way to gaining some respect.

Calling me a facist and a Chomsky diciple in the same post, I am amused.

It was you who wrote, and I quote "I don't think you can really claim unqualified totalitarianism unless there is actual repression tied into it, especially political repression". I have given you many references to one specific well documented example where the NSA was involved in the identification and takedown of key leaders of a political movement. Perhaps you should have said something like: "I don't think you can really claim unqualified totalitarianism unless there is actual repression tied into it, especially political repression, unless it is a minor political movement, or a fringe political movement - it is OK to repress those they dont count."

Your posts here strongly smell of socially destructive Right Wing Authoritarianism, chiefly:

Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.

Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.

Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms.

Latest example of several that are on record: NSA used to squash the political movment: Occupy Wall Street. So your right, it is now possible to make a claim for unqualified totalitarianism in this country.

Did Youtube hand over the IP Address?

It would appear that Bittorrent the company considers the healthy bittorrent/client ecosystem to be a mistake not to be repeated. Like this chat protocol, they have also announced a P2P Streaming protcol - their implimentation will be closed source encumbered with patents that they have threated to use against anyone wishing to start an alternative open client. So even when they openly publish the protocol, it is still of no use the open source community. Don't believe me, take this quote from the horses mouth:

So, yeah, You can read the protocol spec but try to impliment it and we will "discourage" you - i.e. use out patent(s) to clobber your OS project to oblivion. Personally I hope the open source community can take these interesting initiatives, design around the patents and make a true P2P Streaming and secure chat system ecosystem - because it appears that Bittorrent the company has fallen far from its early success of kicking off the truly open bittorrent protocol, sadly.

Certainly not when they deliberatly build in obsolescence so your forced to throw away/consume more - increase profits vs deplete more natural resources. Longer warrenty periods by law would go a long way to reign in companies balancing act - how short can they push a products life without overtly harming the brand. Force them to increase product quality (or at least remove the cheap gimmicks they use to sabotage their own products after a short period).

F-That Mate, there can be no exceptions just because your a mega corporation. You don't like the local laws, minimum wage, environmental or employee protections, do not operate in that locality - your not welcome as a company.

Most Corporations are almost always looking to freeload to pad their bottom line. I.E. externalize the negatives so that the rest of us and our children have to pay the deficit one way or the other. Given the ease with whch they can buy their politicians, they usually get away with it...

Yes. It is also easier for lawmakers/political elite to seem to be forced to change the law against their will in order to avoid political fallout. "We are just normalizing with internationaly recognized laws", Enter the TPP.

The data and operations sharing arrangements within these opaque organizations, is, well, opaque. There is no strict "there must be a separation of intelligence organizations" rule. They specialize and they also overlap, so we can only assume that they all work hand in hand:

True. The US is the biggest corporate welfare socialist regime in the world. Socialism is only a dirty word when you, dear tax payer, demand more social service bang for your buck. Why spend good tax $$$ on a dignified social security net when you can spend (appropriate?) X times more on an effective police state to crack down on the resulting crime due to a lack of one, or sell more health insurance even.

10 reasons why disney are unspeakably evil

NSA Spying and Intelligence Collection: A Giant Blackmail Machine. Great for subverting democracies the world over. It is perfectly capable of intimidating the majority of politicans with any "real power" (or powerful bankers: see "The US Using Prism To Engage In Commercial Espionage").

No, the NSA Surveillance Destroys Diplomacy and Democracy:

Interesting spin. So how does monitoring 35 world leaders fall into that "the bad guys are amougst us" line.

In other words, the NSA Surveillance Destroys Diplomacy and Democracy:

The reporter that attributed those words to Assange is David Leigh. A well known liar, the type of person that breaks contract then lies about it, David Leigh also has been called out out by an independent third party journalist for fabricating those words:

"However, an independent witness – John Goetz, a journalist with Der Spiegel – states that the events related above are simply not true:"

"“I was at dinner at the Moro restaurant in London, along with Marcel Rosenbach from Der Spiegel, David Leigh and Declan Walsh of the Guardian, and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Patrick Forbes asked me specifically if Julian Assange had made the remark “They’re informants, they deserve to die” at the dinner, as has been alleged by David Leigh, and I told him that Julian did not say that at the dinner.”"

David Leigh' s systematic pattern of dishonesty.

But you know all this already, don't you Cold Fjord. By calling out your FUD with some facts and counter examples you will feebly defend as you have done in your last post by accusing any detractors from your message of being "fans" or part of some cult. Anything other than, you know, actually addressing the facts or providing solid counter evidence.

So now you have been informed that David Leighs account is highly questionably including credible independent third party witnesses, and that David Leigh has a long history of dishonesty on other non Assange related areas - yet I can guarantee you will be back here with the same ferver like agenda, the same libel Assange quote on the next Wikileaks story. No matter how many times we demonstrate some of your more crazy ideas to be false, you persist on repeating over and again the same falehoods - damn the facts and eternally ignore any counter evidence presented. One can see this clearly time and again across many topics only by browsing your post history and the subsequent replies. Rinse, repeat. This is the classical modus operandi of a troll, a shill and a astroturfer. Facts do not matter.